Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

SAINT PAUL, PORTMAN SQUARE, SAINT MARYLEBONE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Press Council (Procedure)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will introduce legislation to formalise the procedure of the Press Council, and in particular, to permit individuals to state their defence before a decision is made; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): No, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is not the present position unsatisfactory? Has my right hon. Friend looked into the case of Mr. Clement Freud, against whom a complaint was lodged following an article in the Sunday Telegraph? Has my right hon. Friend seen Mr. Freud's letter in the Sunday Telegraph on 22nd March, in which he said that the complaint was adjudicated upon without his knowledge, in his absence, without the possi-

bility of representations being made at the hearing and with no right of appeal? While welcoming the extension of the powers of the Press Council, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this again with a view to formalising the position, otherwise journalists' professional reputations can be severely harmed by this form of Star Chamber procedure?

Mr. Deedes: The Press Council has a well-established procedure for receiving complaints and calling for any oral evidence that it requires without legal representation. Generally speaking, the House has approved this form of Press Council—that is to say, a voluntary rather than a statutory council. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I am willing to forward to the Council any details which he may let me have.

Mr. M. Foot: Is it not the case that the House has never given any support to a procedure whereby a person against whom a complaint is made shall not be allowed to appear before the Press Council to put his case? The House of Commons would not tolerate that kind of procedure. It never occurred to anyone in this House that such a thing would arise. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to say that, if there were any repetition of this kind of case, he would think it necessary to consider further legislation or other action?

Mr. Deedes: The House discussed the general kind of Press Council it thought desirable and this was the general conclusion it reached. If there is a particular case of this kind, I will see that it is brought to the attention of the Council.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend bring this matter to the attention of the very eminent Chairman of the Press Council, because I am sure that the Chairman would be very seized of these matters which are worrying the House?

Mr. Deedes: Yes. I fully endorse that reference to the Chairman.

Visiting Scientists

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister without Portfolio what services he provides for foreign scientists visiting Great Britain.

Mr. Deedes: Services for scientists visiting this country are provided through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the British Council and the Central Office of Information. They include the arrangement of consultations, tours and courses of study, and the provision of advice and assistance in many ways.

Mr. Dalyell: If such services are perhaps better provided by other Ministries, is not the right hon. Gentleman's own Ministry rather superfluous?

Mr. Deedes: It depends really on the type of tour which is considered. It may be that the British Council can be of service for a certain kind of visit, or the Foreign Office or the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. My own functions are not called upon save in the sense of co-ordinating information which may be required.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Houses

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board not to sell any more of its railway houses.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No, Sir. I do not think that this would be appropriate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Did not the old railway companies buy houses for perfectly good administrative reasons in order to facilitate the movement of personnel when they were promoted from one place to another?

Mr. Galbraith: It may well have been that the old private companies did this for good administrative reasons, but equally for good administrative reasons the Railways Board now wishes to get rid of some of its houses.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In some of the cases of proposals for sale, would not the sale have meant grave injustices to individual employees of the railways, and will not a general sale impede the process of promotion?

Mr. Galbraith: This is a matter which must be left to the commercial and

managerial judgment of the Railways Board.

Sir J. Macleod: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no deliberate running down of the railways in a certain region by selling these properties?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly I can, Sir.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what percentage increase has been made by the British Railways Board in the rents charged by the Board for houses in its possession which are let to railway personnel.

Mr. Galbraith: The British Railways Board tells us that the rents of railway-owned houses, where these are not subject to rent control, are fixed in the light of the levels of rent currently charged for comparable properties in each locality. No figure of the overall percentage increase in such rents over any period is available, and to obtain one would, the Board tells me, entail a disproportionate amount of work.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Minister agree that real hardship was caused to one of my constituents when his rent was raised by 70 per cent. the other day? Is that not a change in his conditions of employment made by the Railways Board?

Mr. Galbraith: Tenants of the Railways Board have the same protection as tenants of other landlords. It would be wrong to put the Railways Board into a different position.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does it not alter the terms of employment when the rent is increased by 70 per cent.?

Mr. Galbraith: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Closed Lines

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board not to lift the rails of any branch or main railway line until a comprehensive report about Great Britain's present and future transport needs has been presented to Parliament.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.

Mr. Spriggs: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply, as the Conservative Party had no mandate at the last General Election to carry out this policy? As a comprehensive report has been called for, would it not be wiser to wait until it has been submitted to the House before these lines—very important lines in some instances—are lifted?

Mr. Galbraith: It may help the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that in six cases where my right hon. Friend has given consent to close the line he has asked the railways to inform him before the track is lifted. I think that is adequate protection.

Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that the Minister will, if necessary, tell the railways that they must not lift the tracks if they think there is a possibility that in future the line may be needed?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that we should have to wait and see what the case was. What this does is to prevent the railways from doing it without informing my right hon. Friend, and then my right hon. Friend, in the particular circumstances of the case, could consider what, if anything, was the right thing to do.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government have always had a mandate to try to make the railways and the whole transport system pay, as is laid down in the Transport Acts, and if it is clearly proved beyond doubt that a branch line does not pay and will never pay, is it not sensible to sell the line?

Mr. Galbraith: That is what the Railways Board is trying to do.

Members of Parliament (Information)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek to amend the Transport Act, 1962, in such a way that Members of Parliament can obtain detailed information from the Railways Board for Parliamentary purposes.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the Board already does all that can reasonably be expected of it to provide hon. Members with information they need for Parliamentary purposes.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Railways Board is not

giving hon. Members information about finances which they have been asking for? I take it that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to obtain the information to which I refer—the overall takings at stations and goods depôts. As hon. Members cannot get this information, would the hon. Member look at this matter again, have a talk with the Chairman of the Railways Board, and report to the House?

Mr. Galbraith: This is a very difficult question because it runs into the problems of managerial competence. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member what my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House said on 31st July last year, that Ministers would consider sympathetically getting information on a national basis about nationalised industries. If it is general figures which the hon. Member wants and he would like to inform me about them, I will certainly do what I can to help, but if they are detailed figures about a particular case, that would be another matter.

Mr. Spriggs: Does this not make the Chairman of the Railways Board into a virtual dictator in that he is given power by the Minister to refuse to give Members of the House of Commons vital information? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter again in the light of the requirements of information that we vitally need, and report to the House?

Mr. Galbraith: If it is information on a detailed point, I am afraid that I cannot do anything, but if it is information on a general matter, then we can try to help.

Main-line Stations (Security Wardens)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport when security wardens were introduced at main-line railway stations; how many there are; what is the total cost of this corps; and by what sum railway pilferage has been reduced since their introduction.

Mr. Galbraith: The British Railways Board tells me that it introduced security wardens at the principal main-line stations and parcels depôts in London and Manchester on 1st January, 1961. There are in all 83 wardens currently employed, at a total annual wages cost


of £63,000. The Board does not consider it practicable to assess the amounts by which losses by pilferage have been reduced since their introduction.

Mr. Wells: Would my hon. Friend confirm, however, that this corps has given very valuable service, and although it may not be possible to assess the precise savings that it has effected, will he confirm that the service is very valuable and indicate whether the Board would consider extending it to other main-line stations?

Mr. Galbraith: I can certainly give an assurance that these security wardens have proved very valuable. They have released the police for other duties for which they are fully trained. As for their future, I will consult with the Railways Board about that.

Proposed Closures, North of Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what action he proposes to take as a result of the report made to him following the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's hearing in Inverurie on 10th February, about the withdrawal of certain train services between Aberdeen, Inverurie, Pitmedden, Kinaldie and Kintore:
(2) what action he proposes to take as a result of the report made to him following the Transport Users' Consultative Committee's hearing in Elgin on 11th February, about the withdrawal of certain train services between Aberdeen, Keith and Elgin.

Mr. Galbraith: We are studying these reports and all other relevant factors in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot anticipate the outcome.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that it is very improper for him to answer these two Questions together, because the considerations affecting these two districts are quite distinct? Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that the loss and damage which these withdrawals are inflicting on trade, industry, commerce and employment in Aberdeen City and County is greatly enhanced by the secrecy with which these withdrawals

are planned and carried out? The hon. Gentleman's Answer is a striking example of that.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong, because there is no secrecy about it, nor have there been, any withdrawals. The Railways Board said that it wished to withdraw certain services, and there has been an inquiry before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee which has reported to my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend, in discussion with other of his right hon. Friends, will shortly be coming to a conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Boyden.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. Two Questions were answered together. Would you not allow me to put another supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary arises out of one answer. We cannot go on with it.

Proposed Closures, South-West Durham

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport (1) in view of the implications of the White Paper on the North-East that an increasing number of people will have to travel to work from South-West Durham to the growth zone to the east, what improvements in public transport he is sponsoring between Middleton-in-Teesdale, Barnard Castle and Newton Aycliffe and Darlington and between Witton Park, Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Darlington and Newton Aycliffe following the British Railways Board's proposals to eliminate all railway passenger services in this area and in view of the report which he has received from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee;
(2) in view of paragraph 107 of the White Paper on the North-East, stating that the region will have much more to offer the tourist and holidaymaker as modernisation gets under way in communications, what steps he is taking to ensure that the last remaining railway passenger services between Middleton-in-Teesdale, Barnard Castle and Darlington and between Bishop Auckland and Darlington, which serve the two principal tourist attractions of


South-West Durham, namely, Teesdale and Weardale, are maintained and improved, in view of the proposed closure of the line and the report on it by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Mr. Galbraith: When my right hon. Friend considers railway passenger closure proposals he takes into account all relevant factors before he reaches his decision. These include any implications for travel to work or for tourists and holidaymakers.
One of the major concerns of my right hon. Friend, as he has frequently stated, is to see that adequate alternative services are, where necessary, available when a passenger closure takes place.
The improvement of rail and other public transport services is primarily a matter for the operators. The Railways Board and the road transport undertakings continually review their services in the light of changing demands.

Mr. Boyden: Why does the Minister go on pondering this matter? In the case of the Middleton-Barnard Castle-Darlington line, is not he aware that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee said that severe hardship would be caused to a great variety of people, including workpeople and children, if the line was shut? Why does not he give a direction to British Railways to maintain the service? In the case of the second railway—Crook-Bishop Auckland-Darlington—is he aware that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee met, that quite inadequate proposals were made by the bus service, and that at the next meeting the bus proposals were still inadequate? Cannot he make a decision that both lines should be kept open?

Mr. Galbraith: The trouble is that hon. Members who have an interest in these matters always want their own cases considered first. These matters are far too important for me to give an off-the-cuff decision merely when the report of a consultative committee has been received—and in the case of the Crook line, no report has yet been received from the consultative committee.

Sir J. MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend give a similar assurance in respect of freight services as has been given, in this Question and previous Questions, on

passenger services? Surely there should be no closure of freight services until adequate alternative services are provided.

Mr. Galbraith: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows very well that the position is quite different. The Railways Board has complete freedom with regard to freight. It is only in respect of passenger closures that the consultative committee procedure is applicable.

Mr. Boyden: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first opportunity on the Adjournment.

Proposed Closure, Blyth and Tyne Line

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee following the hearing at Whitley Bay on Thursday, 19th March in regard to the proposed closure of the Blyth and Tyne line.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the need for a very early and favourable decision on this matter, in view of the number of industrialists seeking to move into the district affected by the proposed closure, and that such a decision will be beneficial to industrial development in the area?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that the North-Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee is well aware of that, but this is not the only case that it has to deal with. Many of these cases are very complicated. However, I am sure that what the hon. Member has said will not be lost on the consultative committee.

Dame Irene Ward: Having seen the various proposals put forward, and the arguments on which Dr. Seething bases his proposals, will my hon. Friend see that alternative railways are available? Can he give a guarantee that where that argument is used it means that the railways will be available for ever? Otherwise it is quite a false basis on which to put forward such an argument.

Mr. Galbraith: It would be most unwise for me to undertake that anything would ever be there for ever. I could not give my hon. Friend that undertaking.

Dame Irene Ward: Then the argument is on a false basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Public Transport, Urban Areas

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will appoint a committee of independent experts to study what new financial structure may be required to improve standards of public transport in urban areas, in view of the findings of the Buchanan Committee.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. We do not think such an inquiry is required at present. We are already considering, in consultation with the transport operators and the local authorities, ho best to improve the standards of public transport in urban areas.

Mr. Rodgers: As this is by common consent a very complicated problem and as there has been a great deal of discussion lately about pricing policy with regard to private transport, including by the Smeed Committee, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that a committee to look in detail and at length into the question of pricing policy might make recommendations which would be very useful guidance to local authorities in very large urban areas?

Mr. Galbraith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that this is a complicated matter, but we do not think that an inquiry of the nature which he has suggested is what is really needed. What is much more necessary at the moment is to try to get the operators to provide a more satisfactory service.

C Licence Holders (Prosecutions)

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport how many prosecutions were instituted in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively, against C licence holders for using their vehicles in a manner other than that permitted under the licensing regulations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): In the 12 months ending 30th September in each case, the licensing authorities reported 970, 1,228, and 757 prosecutions respectively, for breach of conditions of carriers' C licences.

Mr. Rodgers: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what proportion of these prosecutions relates to persistent offenders? Is he satisfied in particular, in view of the drop, as I understand it, in the last of these years, that a sufficient number of prosecutions is being taken against C licence holders who are attempting to provide tramp services with their vehicles contrary to their licences? Could he say also what powers are available to withdraw licences or fail to renew them if the conditions are not properly fulfilled?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot answer the first of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions without notice. Whether we have a record as between persistent and repeated offences and first offences, I cannot say, but I will look into the matter. With regard to the last of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions, there are adequate powers for the licensing authorities to withdraw the licences of persistent offenders. With regard to enforcement, I do not think too much should be read into variations from one year to another. I do not think there is any particular significance in the drop between 1962 and 1963.

Mr. Mellish: But these are prosecutions which were discovered by a very inadequate Supply of inspectors. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the Department will do to increase the number of inspectors available to apprehend those concerned in what is known to be a very large malpractice at this moment? What is he going to do about it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would not entirely agree with the implication in that supplementary question. With regard to the number of inspectors I have little to add to the answers on that subject which I gave not long ago. However, as I indicated then, we hope to


improve the methods by which these regulations are enforced rather than merely step up the numbers of inspectors.

Mr. Rodgers: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that it is possible that licensing authorities may feel that the fact that the Geddes Committee is sitting exonerates them from some responsibility for enforcing existing licensing regulations, and would he make it clear to them that as long as the law remains, it ought to be enforced?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think there is any question about our doing our utmost to ensure that the law is properly enforced without any prejudice to what may be found or recommended in due course by the Geddes Committee.

Insurance

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Transport if he will move to amend Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to provide that no person or body of persons carrying on motor vehicle insurance in Great Britain can be considered an authorised insurer under the Act if he or they refuse cover to a person on the grounds that such person is not of British extraction.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No motorist should have any difficulty in obtaining the minimum statutory insurance cover provided his record as a driver is a reasonable one. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details of any cases he has in mind I would be glad to try to help.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a constituent of mine has recently been refused cover by the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd., solely for the reason that he is of foreign extraction? As this man fought alongside us during the whole of the last war in the Polish Air Force, and has been a naturalised British subject for more than 10 years, does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that this action of the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd. is most unfair and grossly insulting? If so, will he look into this matter again?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have seen the correspondence between my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon.

Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We would certainly strongly deprecate any discrimination solely on the ground that the applicant for insurance was not of British origin, but I think that we should wait to see what emerges from the inquiries which we will be glad to make if my hon. and gallant Friend can give us more details in addition to that which he has just given so that we may know to whom the inquiry should be addressed.

Mr. Tiley: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that I have known the Northern Assurance Company Ltd. for many years and have never known it to indulge in practices of this kind? As motor insurance companies have lost many millions of £s over the last few years, it is only right to say that they are trying to make the good risks pay less, and the bad risks pay more, irrespective of race, colour or creed. That is the only commonsense way of dealing with motor insurance.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but I would rather go no further until we have had an opportunity of studying the actual details of this case.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) realise that I referred to the Malvern Insurance Company Ltd. and not to the Northern Assurance Company?

Mr. Tiley: My comments apply to the Malvern as well as to the Northern.

Airport Buses (Non-smoking Accommodation)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to provide non-smoking accommodation on buses running between airports and air terminals.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. The only buses which are run by the London Transport Board between an airport and an air terminal are those owned by British European Airways, and the provision of non-smoking accommodation on them is therefore a matter for British European Airways.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I have tried to put a Question down to the Minister of Aviation because I thought that that was the case, and that I have so far failed? I shall communicate with B.E.A.

Roundabouts (Signs)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet able to estimate what the public response has been to his "Give way to the right" signs at selected roundabouts; and if he will make a statement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusion from this experiment but preliminary indications are promising.

Mr. Smith: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many motorists are finding these signs a considerable asset at roundabouts, but that when one road tends significantly to be more of a major one than the other, they are ignoring them? Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that it is worth continuing with the experiment at that type of roundabout, and does he envisage in the long run having this as a permanent feature of the road traffic law?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that it is too early to answer my hon. Friend's supplementary questions. I think that we must see how the trials which it is planned to carry out at about 76 roundabouts work out. So far, signs have been erected at 41 of them.
Preliminary observations—and I stress that these are preliminary—indicate that traffic flows are better and that what are called "lock-ups" have been almost eliminated. There is also less need for supervision by the police. On the other hand, there is no marked change in the accident figures, and there is a tendency for the signs to be disregarded once an entry stream has been firmly established.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister say for how long this experiment is going on? Furthermore, does it not create confusion and misunderstanding when a regulation or practice of this kind is applied to some roundabouts and not to others? Where it does not apply, one gets a state of psychological warfare.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not know that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The notices when the "Give way to traffic from the right" rule is in force are very clear. They can be seen as one approaches, and if there is no notice at all, one goes on as before.

Traffic Schemes, West and East London

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport what further systems of tidal flow and other experiments in traffic engineering he is considering introducing in the west and east London areas with a view to casing traffic congestion on these approaches to London in advance of the computer-controlled traffic signals coming into operation.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We have announced proposals for further traffic schemes in the west and east London areas to ease traffic congestion. One of these is for a form of tidal flow on Hammersmith Bridge. Many other schemes are under consideration.
I cannot say how many will come into operation before the start of the experimental computer-controlled signals scheme in west London, which we hope will be in 1966. As from 1st April, 1965, of course, the Greater London Council will be responsible for traffic schemes in London.

Mr. Dance: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to his right hon. Friend our thanks for the experiments that he has made with one-way streets, and so on, but also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that appalling congestion occurs in the east of London? I refer to the road coming in from Chingford, where there are some ghastly intersections. Can something be done to improve the position?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I will certainly investigate conditions on the road which he has mentioned. I should explain that one difficulty about tidal flow schemes of the kind that he has in mind is that they require roads with a width of not less than five lanes, and in London there are very few stretches of road as wide as that. Where there


are, there are often fairly solid central reservations, and it is impossible for tidal flow schemes to be instituted until they have been removed.

Fatal Accidents

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will break down the figures, contained in the statement issued by his Department, that some 60 fatal accidents on the roads had occurred during the Easter holiday; and if he will in future authorise such statements to include at least the class of person involved, such as motorist, cyclist, pedestrian and, in the latter category, whether they are young, old or blind.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The provisional figures for fatal casualties which are announced over the holiday periods cannot, at the time, be broken down into categories. Fuller information is given at monthly intervals, and I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend the statement for March when it is published later this month.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that personal undertaking in regard to information being given to me. Does he appreciate, however, that the purpose of my putting down this Question was to enable the public generally to appreciate the dangers on the road and the need to do their best to avoid them?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I appreciate that. That is the reason why figures are issued at daily intervals during public holiday periods. But they give only a very rough indication, which often has to be changed a great deal when more accurate figures are announced later, and we think that it would be misleading to attempt to make the immediate release of information more selective, because we should then be dealing with much smaller numbers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether a fuller analysis is now being made of each serious accident which occurs, irrespective of the time of year when it occurred—holiday period or not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is another question.

The Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Transport what was the average number of road accident deaths and the average number of motor vehicles in use in the five-year periods 1930–34 inclusive and 1958–62, respectively.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The average annual number of deaths was 7,042 in the period 1930–34, and 6,615 in the period 1958–62. There was an average of 2·3 million motor vehicles in use in the first period and 8·8 million in the second.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Does not this show that progress is being made in the right direction and does it not reflect a great deal of credit, not only on motorists but on motor manufacturers, for their safety appliances, also on the medical services, and not least on my hon. and gallant Friend's Department for its road safety campaigns and also for providing a great many better roads?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I agree with my noble Friend, but it is fair to say that a number of factors have been at work. One is the better design of vehicles. It should also be remembered that pedestrian crossings, the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas and driving tests were all introduced in 1934 and 1935 and there was a sharp drop in the number of deaths. In 1952 zebra crossings were introduced and again the number of deaths showed a great drop.

Mr. Strauss: While a number of organisations and different Governments have contributed to this satisfactory result, will the Parliamentary Secretary say that he will not be complacent about the present rate of road accidents?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I assure the right hon. Member that I shall not be complacent because, unfortunately, recently the trend has reversed and it is now on the upgrade again.

Drivers (Sleep)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that under the existing law a motorist who is overcome by sleep so that he is unable properly to control his vehicle is committing an offence if he pulls in and


rests until fully awake; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that such action is not in future indictable.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. Under the Motorways Traffic Regulations a driver may stop on the verge in certain circumstances, including accident, illness or other emergency, for as long as is necessary in those circumstances. We do not propose to amend the Regulations in this respect. If a driver begins to feel sleepy, this seldom indicates an emergency. He should open a window to let in some fresh air and either go to the next service area or leave the motorway at the next exit.

Mr. Longden: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that Answer. Does not the law which he has described apply only to motorways and not to ordinary roads? Can my hon. and gallant Friend think of anything more asinine than a law which penalises a driver if he pulls in because he finds himself unable to go on driving, for whatever the cause?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That depends entirely on where the driver pulls in and how the car is parked when he stops. But the Regulations about not stopping on the verge, or on the hard shoulder as it is sometimes called, apply to motorways only. I hope that I am not misinforming the House, but I do not think that there is any regulation which prevents a driver from pulling up on to the grass verge on a road which is not a motorway, provided that his vehicle is clear of the roadway.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister confirm that? I think that it will come as a surprise to the whole House if there is, according to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), a law which makes it an offence for a driver to pull into the verge in conditions where, obviously, in the interests of safety he ought to do so? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman lock carefully into the matter and, if the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West is justified in what he has said, will he take some action about it? Is he aware that the Question applies to roads generally and not to motorways, and that his Answer seemed to apply to motorways?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The reason I applied it to motorways is that it is the Motorways Traffic Regulations which have been criticised on these grounds, because there is a definite prohibition from pulling on to the verge or the hard shoulder. I will pursue the matter in greater detail as the right hon. Gentleman asks. So far as I know, parking on an ordinary road becomes an offence only if an obstruction is created or if it is dangerous parking. I speak under correction, but I should have thought that a motor car parked completely clear of the roadway would not result in an offence being committed.

Mr. Gower: Except on a motorway or a clearway, can my hon. and gallant Friend give a single reason why a motorist, travelling on a fairly clear road, should not be able to pull up and, if necessary, go to sleep in daylight? Can there be any objection to that?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can think of one or two reasons, but I do not think that they would arise from this Question.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that he should be devoting his attention to the question of those drivers of motor vehicles who are overcome by fatigue? Is he aware that there is increasing evidence that many vehicle drivers drive for excessive hours, sometimes as long as 17 hours, and cause danger on the road which results in many accidents? Is he aware that the other night there was a television programme which would have been edifying for the Minister?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware of this problem, but that is a different question.

Bus Services, London

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to include in the information given at bus stops in London, now mostly limited to the route and the time of the last services, the frequency of the service during rush hours and in the middle of the day.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. Matters of this kind fall clearly within the London Transport Board's responsibility for management. In fact, I am informed


by the Board that it is providing information, including an indication of frequency, at all stops in its central bus operating area where time-tables are not provided, and that it has already done so over most of Central London.

Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that when this is completed it will be very welcome? Is he aware that, with the deterioration of bus services and the great uncertainty which exists, it would be extremely convenient to arrive at a bus stop and know whether a bus was coming within five minutes, or within 25 minutes, which is not unusual at some periods during the day?

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that unless priority is given to bus services in central London—which, so far as I know, would mean legislation being enacted—surely such information given at bus stops would be quite irrelevant? How can the buses arrive on time at a given spot when the traffic congestion is such that the vehicles cannot get through?

Mr. Galbraith: That is an entirely different question.

Goods Vehicles (Checks)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the total number of traffic examiners of the licensing authorities, the number of silent checks they have made in respect of goods vehicles over a recent representative period; and what is the proportion of checks to the approximate total goods vehicle journeys over the same period.

Mr. Galbraith: There are about 140 examiners on enforcement work at any one time. Accurate figures of silent checks are not available but the number of vehicles checked is of the order of 100,000 a year. This gives a ratio of one check per 6,000 vehicle-journeys but the odds that an offender will be caught are for various reasons a good deal shorter than this.

Mr. Mapp: Does not it occur to the Minister that the extent of enforcement is infinitesimal and that it is quite clear that some further administrative action is necessary in the light of what is now

called the "cowboy faction" on the periphery of road transport? Will he consider examining the current log books of operators over a more recent period—because this is the way in which, as those with knowledge are aware, facts may be ascertained on which action can be taken—rather than concentrating on alleged silent checks?

Mr. Galbraith: I will consider what the hon. Member has said. The number of examiners has kept pace with the increase in the number of vehicles.

Road Vehicles (Sliding Doors)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Transport what research is being undertaken into the advantages of substituting sliding doors for opening doors on the off side of road vehicles.

Mr. Galbraith: We have not asked for research work to be done on sliding doors as such. The manufacturers, however, are always looking for developments in bodywork design generally that would improve convenience and safety. Sliding doors are already used for several types of vehicle, when they are specially suitable.

Mr. Mapp: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the terrible hazard to cyclists and motor cyclists presented by the opening outwards of doors of road vehicles? This is clearly a desirable improvement. Will the Minister say to his Road Research Laboratory, "This is something which is desirable. Will you sort out the technical details and let the Department know when it can be done"?

Mr. Galbraith: The trouble is that anything which is an advantage often has a disadvantage. Although the hon. Member has pointed out the advantages, there are disadvantages. If there is an accident the doors are likely to jam and it is then more difficult for passengers to get out of a car than if it has the normal type of doors. It is also very difficult when there are sliding doors to have two doors on the same side of the car, as one has in the normal car. There are difficulties as well as advantages.

Buses (Propane Gas)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what research is being carried out on running buses on propane gas; and whether, in the interest of lessened noise and lessened exhaust fumes, he will encourage the use of such gas.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is known that in the North-East it is planned to operate a bus on propane gas, but it is too early to say whether or not the use of this type of fuel should be encouraged generally for this purpose.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that we seem to be on the edge of a break-through in the use of propane gas in diesel engines, and that if this were done there would be no diesel fumes, much less noise and in an urban area where buses are run near their bases, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not put on a large tax, they would be economical? Therefore, should not this research be encouraged in urban areas such as London and other big centres?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: On the question of fumes, comparative tests have shown that the proportion of carbon monoxide emitted from an ordinary diesel engine is only a fraction of that emitted from an ordinary petrol or propane engine. This matter requires more study before we could agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions. We are aware that propane gas, so long as it remains tax-free, could offer an economic advantage, but the total quantities of propane gas available should also be considered. These are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Power.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend agree that no smoke comes out of the diesel engine as it does when a vehicle is using ordinary derv?

Fog Conditions (Headlights)

The Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Transport, what further steps he will take to publicise the advisability of using headlights in motor vehicles in conditions of daytime fog.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Advice that headlamps should be used in condi-

tion of daylight fog is given in the Highway Code, and by broadcasting and television services whenever the weather report forecasts such conditions. That advice is the subject of a short film made recently for television and will be included in a booklet on motorway driving now being prepared. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gives the same advice when appropriate.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that at present about nine out of ten motorists go on using sidelights in day-time fog and that is useless as the lights are seldom more visible than the vehicle itself?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We agree about that. That is why we are doing our best to publicise the need to use headlights. The propaganda will be stepped up when the fog season again approaches.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A.635 and A.638 Roads (Improvement)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the A.635 and A.638 link major export industries in the West Riding with the A.1; and if he will state his plans for their early improvement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: A.635 is a classified road for which the local highway authorities are responsible. An improvement scheme costing £330,000, for which we are making grant, is in progress now in Barnsley.
Westwards from Wakefield A.638 is also a classified road. The local highway authorities plan to improve it throughout and we have offered grant for three schemes in the current programme costing a total of £590,000. Work on one of them—in Wakefield—has begun.
Between Wakefield and A.1 A.638 is a trunk road. We have no immediate plans for its improvement. It is expected that much of the traffic from the West Riding to A.1 will use the Lancashire-Yorkshire motorway and the extended M.1 when these are completed within the next few years.

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful for that information, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that these schemes


deserve higher priorities because the stretches of road to which he referred are so inferior as to constitute a considerable tax on the industrial transport that uses them? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman further aware that this cost may now be crucial to the export performance of many wool textile firms in the West Riding in view of the increasing competition which they face?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware of the importance of these roads, and we are aware of the importance of getting on as quickly as we can, but there are a large number of competing schemes and we do our best to get them in the right order of priority.

Evesham (Draft Town Map)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that the discussions now proceeding between his Department and the Worcestershire County Council surveyor as to the route to be followed by the proposed Evesham by-pass will be brought to a conclusion, so that the draft town map of Evesham can be got ready for public inspection.

Mr. Galbraith: As a result of the discussions with Worcestershire County Council, the county surveyor is now making further investigations into the most suitable line for the by-pass. Until we receive his report I am unable to say when a decision will be made.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now nearly a year and a half since the draft town map was shown to the borough council, and that continued delay in passing the proposals backwards and forwards between his Ministry and the Worcestershire County Council is causing grave uncertainty to the traders, developers and general citizens of the Borough of Evesham? Will he expedite this matter, and exercise his power of decision so as to get on with the work and relieve the uncertainty?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand everything that my hon. Friend has said. In my Answer I said that the county surveyor is undertaking further investigations. Until we get the result of these investigations it is impossible to decide what the lines will be. As this will be a

very important decision, it is wise to make certain that it is right when we make it.

A.184 Road (Improvement)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport when the A.184 road from Sunderland to Newcastle will be improved.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The dualling of the 2½ miles section from Gateshead to Heworth has been completed. Work on the further 1½ miles eastwards to White Mare Pool should start next year. We hope that within the next four or five years work will start on the remaining 1½ miles to the proposed Sunderland by-pass, and also on the by-pass itself, which will be the main distributor for traffic to the Sunderland radial roads.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the earlier part of his Answer refers to parts of the road that no longer matter, because they are quite good already? Is he further aware, however, that the second part of the road—from White Mare Pool on to Sunderland—is in urgent need of improvement, more particularly because it is alleged to cross a level crossing which in fact is the roughest thing between here and Barwick?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I will bear that point in mind.

Lancashire and Yorkshire Motorway

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Transport at what point construction of the first stretch of the Lancashire and Yorkshire motorway will commence; and when this construction will start.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is too early to say. It is planned to start major earthworks on a section in the Pennines in the spring of 1966, but progress elsewhere will depend on completion of the statutory processes and availability of funds.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the roads over the Pennines are inadequate and dangerous, especially in the winter


months? Will he do something to make certain that they are made safe? Does he realise that over a period of years this country has spent less of its gross national product on roads than any other country in Europe?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I was not aware of the latter fact and I do not think that I should accept it without further investigation. As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, this motorway is included in the thousand miles planned for completion by the early 1970s. It will be a very costly project—over £50 million—and the money has to be found from available resources. The statutory processes which include fixing the line of junctions, the treatment of side roads and the acquisition of land, must be completed.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if he reads the publication issued by the Roads Campaign Council he will find that the figures given there indicate that out of about six countries, this country was the lowest in respect of the proportion of the gross national product spent on roads? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that more money must be spent on roads in order that the dangers may be removed as soon as possible?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not wish to be drawn into a debate at Question Time, but my experience is that statistics provided by pressure groups are often capable of more than one interpretation.

Thorne By-pass Scheme

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the Thorne by-pass scheme near Doncaster.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: There is little I can add at this stage to he replies given to the hon. Member on 12th February and 8th April. We are considering the design of the scheme and still aim to complete the further statutory processes and to acquire the land so that work can start in a year or two.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there is a rumour in the district that the line of the by-pass has been agreed and laid down. Why, then, is there further

delay in getting on with this very urgent and necessary job?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: An Order under Section 9 of the Highways Act, 1959, would be necessary to enable my right hon. Friend to make alterations to side roads affected by the line of the by-pass. A compulsory purchase order would be needed to acquire the necessary land.

Mr. Jeger: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he thinks that the work on this road will actually commence?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The construction work which, incidentally, will include seven bridges, will take about three years. We expect the by-pass to be in use within five years.

Calder Bridge, Wakefield (Design)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport which design he has chosen for the new Calder Bridge, near Wakefield.

Mr. Galbraith: No decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Jeger: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the situation with regard to this bridge has been complicated by the fact that the West Riding County Council has submitted its own design for the bridge, despite the fact that the county surveyor of the West Riding was on the panel of experts which selected the previous unsuitable bridges and recommended an award of public money for these designs?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that that will affect the decision of my right hon. Friend.

Keynsham By-pass

Sir E. Leather: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to expedite the construction of the Keynsham by-pass in north Somerset.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As my hon. Friend knows, we are hoping to let the contract for this scheme shortly.
Two years are being allowed for completion, w lich I regard as reasonable and in accordance with sound engineering practice.

Sir E. Leather: I am sorry, but this is most unsatisfactory. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, if the Minister were sitting anywhere but in the place he occupies, he would be the first to scoff at this ridiculously leisurely programme for something which is urgently needed? Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell him to take the advice given by a more eminent person than myself and take his right hon. finger out?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I have studied the correspondence between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend on this matter and we think that my hon. Friend under-estimates the difficulties. The scheme will entail the construction of a pedestrian underpass, four bridges, three under and one over, of 150 ft., and an exceptional amount of rock excavation. It will also include the construction of a long embankment which must be left for a considerable time for settlement to take place before the carriageway can be laid.

Eastern Avenue Extension, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport in view of local concern in the Borough of Leyton, what revision of plans has taken place in respect of the Eastern Avenue extension through that borough and of other projects originally designed to ease traffic congestion; and what is the approximate timetable of the reconstruction.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Planned improvements, including the Eastern Avenue Extension, will provide effective relief from traffic congestion in Leyton. Traffic management measures are also under consideration.
Reconstruction of the junction at the "Green Man" is expected to begin this summer and should be completed about a year later. I cannot say when the Eastern Avenue Extension will be started.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member for that reply, may I ask if he appreciates that the congestion, particularly in Leyton, will become steadily greater and more severe as the months go by? Is he aware that uncertainty as to whether there is to be drastic reconstruction in the whole area is causing great concern? Will he give more precise information about when

building projects are likely to be fulfilled?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am afraid that I cannot do that. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as possible on the schemes selected for the 1968–69 extension of the roads programme, but I cannot at this moment say what they will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Bristol and Newport (Rochdale Report)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport what negotiations have now taken place between his Department and the ports of Bristol and Newport, arising out of the Rochdale Report; and if he will give an assurance that no changes in the function of these two ports will take place until these negotiations are completed.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir"; such discussions would be premature before we receive the views of the National Ports Council on the issues involved.
On the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to a similar Question by him on 18th December.

Mr. Awbery: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that for more than a century the port of Bristol has been owned and controlled by the local authority? It is the only municipally-owned port in the country, and the local authority is therefore very much concerned about the future of the port. The suggestion in the Rochdale Committee's Report is that it should merge with Newport. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the Advisory Committee to be set up by the Rochdale Committee will fully consult both Bristol and Newport before any definite action is taken on this matter?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand—in fact I have no doubt—that the Council is in touch on these matters both with the Port of Bristol Authority and with the British Transport Docks Board, which is the docks authority for Newport. I think that it


would be premature to say more until we receive the Report of the Council, but I hope that it will not be too long before we are in a position to make a statement.

Deck Apprentices (Training)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a large number of deck apprentices fail to complete their training because of the lack of facilities for promotion; and if he will introduce legislation to provide educational opportunities for them to link the practical side of their training with an academic nautical course.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand that there are good opportunities for the promotion of deck officers in the Merchant Navy, and that the wastage during training is not unduly high. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport are discussing with shipowners, the officers' associations and the navigation schools the possibility of providing academic qualifications which would enable deck apprentices to attain a higher standard of education. Legislation would not be necessary.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that I am informed that half the young men who enter this industry as apprentices leave it after four years because there is no system of promotion and because the pay is not good? Can he do something to encourage men to enter this important industry, upon which we depend so much?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My information differs from that of the hon. Gentleman's. Mine is that the wastage is about 20 per cent., and that most of it occurs during the first two years of apprentices' time. No particular cause stands out, but I suppose that the short answer is seasickness and girls—although the two are not necessarily in order of importance.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the information which he has given to my hon. Friend will be very welcome, because although some shipping companies provide this form of training, there are many ship-

owners who do not? While I agree that registration is unnecessary, perhaps, in addition to what the Minister has stated is the intention of the Government, would they consult the Shipping Federation, because there is a great danger that deckhands will be in short supply in future years?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the advantage of arranging for a higher standard of education. We are in consultation with the various bodies concerned and perhaps I may say that the proposals recently made by the Merchant Navy and Airline Pilots Association have proved a most valuable contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Miss Vickers: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence now answers Questions which were previously answered on four separate occasions, and that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Education and Science answer Questions previously answered on two separate occasions, whether he will make arrangements for these Ministers to answer Questions more frequently.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The order of Questions is reviewed at intervals but I should prefer not to commit myself to any further change until we have a little more experience of the new order, recently introduced. This is in the nature of an experiment with the aim, which I hope will be generally welcome, of ensuring that all Departments are reached for Questions as frequently as possible.

Miss Vickers: I do not think that it is a very satisfactory Answer, because the Secretary of State for Defence now answers for four different Ministries. For instance, instead of having Questions on a Wednesday to the Admiralty we have to wait for the turn of the Secretary of State for Defence. As the Service Departments, in particular, take a long time to answer letters, we should have an opportunity more often to ask Questions for oral answer.

Lloyd: In fact it has not worked out so badly, because the Secretary of State for Defence was reached both on Wednesday, 15th April, and on Wednesday, 22nd April, and Questions were answered. The point is to have the Ministries revolve as quickly as possible. I have gone into the matter very carefully, but my mind is not closed to change and I will discuss the matter through the usual channels if a change is generally wanted.

Mr. W. Hamilton: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering this, will he remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who appears only once, answers for at least a dozen Departments.

Mr. Lloyd: The advantage of the new system is seen from the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland answered Questions on 22nd April and also on 29th April, which is better than under the old system.

Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering this matter will he also consider the position of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. He is at Question No. 45 on Mondays, and that happens to be a particularly busy Question day, with the result that he is almost out of reach. I have had a Question for answer by him which has been on the Order Paper for three weeks and which has not yet been reached. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider bringing him down to Question No. 40 so that there is a chance of Members putting Questions to him?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the position of anyone who has Question No. 45, for I have some sympathy with him.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Lipton: In the course of a supplementary question which I asked of the Minister of Health on Monday I referred to "slum conditions" in the Royal Eye Hospital, St. George's Circus, London, S.E.1.
I wish to make it plain that my observation was directed solely to the structure and limitations of the building and that I intended no reflection upon the high standard of hygiene maintained by the staff in adverse conditions.

BILL PRESENTED

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Bill to strengthen the law for preventing the publication for gain of obscene matter and the publication of things intended for the production of obscene matter, presented by Mr. Brooke; supported by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Woodhouse, and Miss Mervyn Pike; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Health Services in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Martin Redmayne.]

MILITARY EXPENDITURE OVER- SEAS (ESTIMATES COMMIT- TEE'S REPORTS)

3.33 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
This House takes note of the Tenth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Fifth Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Military Expenditure Overseas.
I move this Motion very happily in the presence of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), whose father was the progenitor of the Estimates Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to quote from his historic book on his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, in which he quotes his father as saying:
I should like to turn the House of Commons loose into our public departments on a voyage of discovery. I should like to see every one of our public departments rigorously inquired into by small committees of about seven experienced and practical Members.
That suggestion was eventually followed up and resulted in the formation of the Estimates Committee, of which I have had the honour to be a member for about a dozen years.
Our task over the last two years has been this inquiry into military expenditure overseas. We had no precedents to guide us in such an inquiry. Never before had the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee been overseas with power to study events on the spot. Although it is true that there had been missions, one might call them, to Malta and Gibraltar, there had been nothing on the scale of the inquiries which we have been carrying out over the last two years. We have had to make our own precedents as we have gone along.
Throughout the whole of our investigation we have had the utmost help not only from the Ministry of Defence, to which I pay a very warm tribute, but also from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force authorities. They were, naturally, a little alarmed at our coming to begin with, and one might almost say that they were rather suspicious of our intentions, but as our inquiries went along we had the most friendy co-operation from them, and if our first Report or, rather, the Tenth Report as it is, has any virtues, many of them will be due to the help and co-operation which we have had from the Service Departments.
Our first great difficulty was to find out what we were supposed to look at. We are spending about £2,000 million on defence each year, and we tried very hard to find what proportion of this sum was spent overseas. We have failed utterly to get an accurate picture. What we have obtained—and hon. Members will find this on page 12 of the Report—is an accurate account of local spending—that is to say, money spent on troops' pay, civilian labour and other things overseas. But there is not a hint as to what has been spent on arms, equipment, machinery, vehicles or spares.
If we practically double the figure which is given on page 12, we come to the conclusion that we must be spending overseas at the moment, in one way or another, for defence purposes, about £500 million a year. In other words, one-tenth of all that is gathered in taxation in this country is spent overseas for defence purposes. This was our field of investigation, and it was an immense task.
We began by a visit to Malta, Cyprus, El Adem, Kenya, Aden and Bahrein. Since then Sub-Committee D, of which I have had the honour of being Chairman, has visited El Adem again. We have also been to Gan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Bengazi. In making this Report, and the next Report, which, I hope, will be available to the House in a couple of months' time, the Committee has had the fascinating experience of visiting our soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas. We saw the bases, but we were not allowed to go to the fighting front. I do not know who was responsible for this decision, or whether it was thought that it was too exciting to allow the possibility of seven


M.P.s of all parties being blown up or machine-gunned all at once. We were not allowed to see front-line conditions in Borneo, or the Yemen, or any other area where there had been trouble.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They were afraid of having seven by-elections.

Sir F. Markham: It could be that none of us wanted seven by-elections, even in the cause of an Estimates Committee.
This was our scope and these were our powers. What did we find? The first conclusion, with which I know every hon. Member of the Committee will agree wholeheartedly, is that wherever we went we found the troops in extremely good heart, most keen on their job and, by and large, satisfied that the Army and, indeed, Parliament were doing their utmost for their welfare and their comfort.
There were, however, spots on the tapestry of our defence forces, and some of them were rather black. One of the blackest spots owes its origin to the fact that during the last five or six years we have seen a rather dramatic change in the build-up of the Army. Up to five or six years ago when we had National Service the Army was essentially a force of young, unmarried men. Now it is an Army of more senior married men, who expect to have their wives and families with them. This one fact alone means that the cost per man overseas is now 2½ times more than it was in 1958 or 1959.
In addition, there has been an effort to cope with the difficulties created by the shortage of married quarters or hirings for the married Service man. One of the points we make in the Report is that, in spite of the efforts which have been made, the progress is too slow and too costly. It is too slow, because at the moment in Gibraltar alone, which is not mentioned in the Report but some of us were out there only a fortnight ago, we have about 250 Service families living in what I can only describe as verminous squalor. We saw some of these tenements—I think that "tenements" is the word—of at the most two or three undersized rooms, badly lighted, often overrun with cockroaches.
I cannot feel happy about that position. We have seen this again in Tobruk,

where some of our families are living in conditions which are not only squalid and verminous, but are badly below the standard anywhere in this country, or, indeed, anywhere in Europe. These conditions are appalling. One of the difficulties that the House must turn itself to is the provision of adequate married quarters or hirings, or even good private accommodation, for troops who have joined the forces and are serving overseas.
The progress is too slow and too costly. I will give a simple comparison. I take the average council house in this country as representing the standard of housing which should be supplied for the Service man overseas. The average cost of a council house today, I believe, is about £2,800. The average cost of a three-bedroom flat overseas for use by Service men is, according to our statistics, about £6,000. This is a tremendous difference. The difference is more acute when it is realised that the cost of building labour in places like Gibraltar, Malta and other overseas centres is just about half what it is in Britain.
We have gone into this in great detail. Hon. Members will notice from the Report that we have looked at various housing estates and made comments on them. There is much more that we could do. There is very much more that we have seen this year alone that brings us to the conclusion that our building programme overseas is too slow and too costly. I know that some of my colleagues would like to elaborate on this.
I will not say much on this subject, other than that one of the things which is a must in the tropics is air conditioning. It is a must both from the point of view of efficiency and from the point of view of comfort. Yet the Treasury has shown a very stiff attitude towards this, and the latest communications we have had from the Treasury lead us to think that the Treasury is fighting almost a last-ditch battle against air conditioning in any of the domestic quarters for our troops in the tropics or on the edge of the tropics. My personal view is that air conditioning in the tropics is as essential as central heating in England. It is an absolute must. I hope that the Treasury will help the Services to ensure


that the provision of these amenities is made possible for all three Services.
We are not indiscriminately advocating a vast building programme in every area where we have bases, because we have also considered what one might call the security of tenure of the bases. We know that some of our bases will be ours at any rate through our generation and possibly through the next. Here we came firmly to the conclusion that whatever we spend in the way of married quarters, whatever we encourage civilian contractors to do in the way of hirings, we know that the money will not be misspent.
There are other areas where the security of tenure is possibly 12, months, possibly two years—we do not know. Some of these are the subject of very distinct debate between the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. I will not go further into this at the moment than to say that we would not advocate a vast programme of building married quarters in areas where the security of tenure is less than five years. Here we would advocate a very vigorous programme of temporary buildings.
One of the points we make in the Report is that in regard to temporary buildings the most chaotic conditions have occurred simply through lack of foresight by the various Ministries concerned. It is somebody's job to order the prefabricated buildings. It is somebody else's job to ship them. It is somebody else's job to erect them. In the process not a little damage is done to panels and the cheaper part of the buildings.
One of the recommendations we make is that the firm which makes the temporary buildings should be asked to contract for their transport and final erection. This is the sort of thing which is done in civilian life, and we believe that it would result in far fewer breakages and a far swifter programme.
The next point to which we draw attention—this is very important—is the apparent delay between important Cabinet decisions and the reactions of local contractors. When the Cabinet apparently decided that there were to be great changes in Kenya, according to our estimates it took about 18 months before this decision was brought into the modification of contracts which were already in hand. There is no doubt that, if our

military authorities in Kenya had known earlier of Cabinet decisions, we might have saved a good deal of the expenditure on the tremendous Kahawa base, which has cost over £3 million. All told, I think that on the base and the adjacent lands we have spent about £5 million. We have only just completed it.
Now comes this question: are we to hand over the Kenya Government? It is the delay in Cabinet decisions going down through the chain which we find most disturbing. We hope that in future, whatever the Cabinet is thinking about in the way of changes in military deployment overseas, steps will be taken immediately to modify contracts which might be only just being put in hand by the Miinstry of Works locally, or by the Service Departments.
We also stress the need for improved machinery for financial control. No one can be happy with the financial control at the moment in the Services overseas. Part of the trouble is that men who have won great distinction in the Army, Navy and Air Force by virtue of devotion to their careers have not, in the course of their training and experience, acquired financial acumen. They are often quite at sea on financial matters and we have felt that they have not always had the help they should have had in many respects.
We were impressed with the Command Secretariat of the Army. This is an excellent system and we have suggested that something like it should be extended to the other Services. It has been a pleasure to the Committee to be able to report the success of the flexibility of working parties. These, without exception, have done a very good job indeed. They are saving money and producing efficiency left, right and centre and we have paid a warm tribute to these working parties, their members and the Ministry of Defence.
I must return to the subject of our major conclusion; the lack of good housing and the need for a great housing drive in areas where we have security of tenure. I urge the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to modify their reading of paragraph 130 of our Report, which states:
Before starting an expanded programme of building married quarters overseas, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, in


consultation with the Service Departments, should undertake an analysis, base by base, of the relative costs of married quarters, hirings and private accommodation…
Unfortunately, that paragraph has been used by the Treasury to hold up future programmes for married quarters or hirings. It appears that the Treasury has taken the line that it must not embark on approving any future schemes of accommodation until a full inquiry into the relative costs has been made. For the paragraph to be interpreted in that light is entirely against the meaning of the Committee, the members of which want building and housing programmes to be carried out with the maximum possible speed.
It has been a great personal experience for me to have gone with other members of the Committee to look at our bases overseas. We will be making many other suggestions in our next Report, which, I hope, will be ready next month. It is the duty of the House of Commons to see that we do not finish here, merely as a result of one or two visits by this Committee. The House should exercise constant vigilance over our overseas expenditure.
There should be triennial visits of our bases overseas by members of the Estimates and comparable Committees. These visits should not stop there but should extend to our embassies abroad and wherever the taxpayers' money is spent. This House has a right, through its Estimates and other Committees, to do on-the-spot vigilation. This is one of the ways in which the House can keep control of public spending.
I would like, finally, to express my thanks for the help and assistance the Committee received from the Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments. I wish that I could say the same about the Ministry of Public Building and Works, but, frankly, we found that Ministry to be occasionally in a state of chaos. I am sure that we were not given all the help we wanted from that Ministry owing to the fundamental changes that were taking place. I only hope that that Department sorts itself out rapidly and helps the Se-vices to see that conditions overseas are at least as good as the men and their families expect them to be in England and Germany.
Having said that, I wish once more to express my warmest thanks to the Ministries and my colleagues on the Committee for one of the greatest experiences of my life.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I must begin by taking up the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) about the right of the House to investigate expenditure approved by Parliament anywhere in the world. Constitutionally, hon. Members do not have that right. We cannot take evidence overseas and, as the hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues point out in their Report, it was only through the courtesy or kindness of the Minister of Defence that they were invited to go overseas. If that is the constitutional position—and I am almost certain that it is—surely in these days, when we are spending about £2,000 million on defence, much of it overseas, the House should be in a position thoroughly and properly to investigate what is happening to our forces all over the world.
Consider what would happen in business if an accountant, when presenting his annual report to the shareholders—to say nothing of the inspector of taxes—added a footnote saying that he could not vouch for all the information given in the accounts because he was prohibited from investigating some of the company's books. The days are long since gone when we should suffer the indignity of this obsolescent provision which prevents the House from taking evidence overseas, with clerks and a proper committee formed for the purpose.
The situation should be remedied. How, I do not know; but I suggest that if the Minister of Defence wants to avoid a lot of the criticism that will be coming to him now that he has got the House to approve the experiment of amalgamating the three Services, he should take steps to be as clear as he possibly can—subject to the necessary security precautions, of course—to the House about what he is doing with the money that the House has voted.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham that there are


certain matters connected with the welfare of our troops which should be properly investigated. I recall that there seemed to be far greater liberty for such investigations during the war. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) will remember that we seemed to have more liberty to criticise the way in which our troops were being handled, the conditions under which they were operating and their welfare. But, remembering that we were at war, I have no doubt that things were more than somewhat different.
I was surprised to note in the Report that expert witnesses were asked straightaway to explain their two memoranda which they presented. Apparently, the Sub-Committee as stated in their reports was composed of lay members who did not understand a lot of military jargon. That cannot be said of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). He was a member of the Sub-Committee and I am sure that he is fully conversant with Service jargon as a result of his long service in the forces. I appreciate the necessity for the Estimates Committee to form subcommittees and that it is not always possible for members with military experience to be appointed.

Sir Richard Glyn: The right hon. Member is making an important point, but I would remind him that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), also has substantial experience of military matters. The whole Sub-Committee wished these terms to be expressed in lay language for the benefit of the readers of the Report, because we felt that it was necessary that the evidence should be intelligible not only to us but to all hon. Members.

Mr. Bellenger: I certainly recognise the service of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, although I differentiate to this extent. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Dorset, North has had considerable regular military service, whereas the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, with whom I have served in the House for many years, acquired, as I did, a good deal of knowledge in two world wars. But within the ambit of

the larger question of the £2,000 million which is being spent on defence, we want the experts as far as we can get them.
I speak as a former Secretary of State for War. Although I do not say that I know a good deal about what goes on in the Department now, I learnt a good deal when I was there. This leads up to the case that there are arguments in favour of the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the House should establish a Defence Expenditure Committee. Obviously, it would be out of order to debate that subject now, but it represents the heart of the matter. If we had a Committee of that sort, constantly sitting, we might have something more than the spot check which is all that the Sub-Committee is able to carry out in investigating overseas expenditure.
What did the Sub-Committee find out? Right from the outset, its members were told that to find the cost of what was happening overseas would require a special exercise to be mounted. Therefore, from the start the Sub-Committee met with an obstacle from its expert witnesses. On reading the Report and the questions that were put to those witnesses, one constantly finds the reiterated remark that a witness did not know and, therefore, was urged to go back to the Department and ascertain the information. The Committee examined only a certain number of overseas stations, and not the whole lot, but we are told in the Report that the cost of doing what was done was fairly substantial.
My first point to the Minister of Defence in that respect is that he must look at the costing system within his Department. He is now the Minister responsible for all three Services. We have varying electronic or other costing or pay arrangements in the three Services. I saw one machine for the Army, and it is a very good one. At that time, it was net fully occupied and I put Questions in the House to find out whether that system, which was used by the Royal Army Pay Corps, could not be adopted or utilised by the other two Services. I was told that the other Services would introduce specialised systems of their own.
It should be remembered that when I visited the Royal Army Pay Corps establishment at somewhere like Worthy Down, that machine was dealing with the census figures for the Registrar-General. In other words, the Army machine was sub-contracting for a civil Department. I mention that only as an illustration. Possibly, since those days, progress has been made in this direction. I urge the Minister, however, in his own interest, to see that he has the latest methods for dealing with pay accounts and for costing, because as the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham admitted, the existing costing is not adequate for the House of Commons, which has to deal with vast sums of money in defence.

Sir Eric Errington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although there is not a comprehensive system, there is an establishment of staff inspectors who watch carefully certain aspects of expenditure and of establishment?

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot say that I am aware of that. I have to admit that there is quite a lot of which I am not aware. I am not a member of the Estimates Committee.
I have the opportunity of speaking only occasionally when the former Service Ministries or the Ministry of Defence have brought their Estimates to the House. I continually complain that it is impossible for hon. Members to do their duty thoroughly, because they are not given access to information. I do not mean simply information of the nature that was sought by the Sub-Committee. There are certain other matters connected with defence in which, unless one thoroughly understands them or is given information concerning them, one cannot tell whether an overseas base or garrison is being efficiently run, whether it should be run at all or whether the Minister should not be urged to close it down. We know from reading the Report that bases were started in both Cyprus and in Kenya, where millions of pounds of public money were spent, but that later, because of a change of policy by the Government, those bases became either obsolescent or useless.
That brings me to the point, which, I believe, is mentioned in the Report of

the Sub-Committee, that there should be greater co-operation between the Service Departments and the Foreign Office, where policy really is formulated, about our overseas forces or the necessity at all for keeping some forces overseas. I have been a member of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and, therefore, I have an idea of how the machine works. I have a suspicion that Ministers are too much overworked to be able to foresee clearly what will happen in a certain part of the world, such as, for example, Kenya, while immense sums of money are being spent upon preparing large depôts.
Look at the money that was spent in Kenya or East Africa because it was thought by the military authority that we should have to get out of the Suez Canal area of the Middle East, where we had immense stores of weapons, and, therefore, a reserve depôt was necessary. As it turned out, a large amount of stores was left in the Middle East because they could not physically be moved. Then, our reserve base in Kenya was eventually scrapped. Indeed, we seem all the time to be in the process of being gradually pushed out of our prepared positions, because, perhaps rightly, the Government have decided that we can no longer maintain these colonial positions and we must give independence to the countries in which they are located.
Therefore, my point in that respect is that there should be better co-operation between the military Departments, who, presumably, make the strategic decisions, and the Foreign Office, particularly concerning policy.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Estimates Committee, which is designed to undertake the task of conducting inspections and reporting, does not have any say in the matter of policy? Are we entitled to discuss policy which directs our forces to Aden to Cyprus or to other bases? I am not so sure that we are. I should be delighted to discuss policy, but are we discussing policy or merely the Report of the Estimates Committee?

Mr. Bellenger: Obviously, we cannot discuss policy in its wide aspects, but, surely, one can refer to policy when, time and again, the Report speaks of


the inability of the Sub-Committee to decide, for example, whether permanent married quarters were advisable or whether we should use hirings—that is, whether we should have permanent residences for the troops or whether we should go in for temporary accommodation by hiring. That is why I mention the matter of policy, because these matters which the Sub-Committee have raised impinge upon it.
These spot checks are useful to a limited extent, but the House should not be under any illusion: we are not discussing whether the money has been wisely spent. All we can do is touch the fringe and point to certain deficiencies, which it is useful for us to discuss, but which are only a small part of the whole.
For instance, in paragraph 41 the Committee comments on the difference between Service Air traffic control and air traffic control by the International Aeradio Ltd., which is a public company whose shares are owned by the world's principal airlines and one of whose largest shareholders is B.O.A.C. It is obvious that the Sub-Committee came to the conclusion that in that part of the world the military authorities might utilise the civilian system of air traffic control which is used satisfactorily by civilian organisations. This is done by certain Service transport from time to time.
However, this is not really a matter of policy and the whole tenor of my remarks is directed to showing that we want to survey the subject more widely. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will agree with me that until we have an expert Committee of the House, with access to some of the strategic implications of our forces overseas, these Committees which go overseas to investigate expenditure will not be able to do their job properly. Of course, a certain amount of information would be denied to such a Committee and certainly could not be published.

Mr. Harold Davies: Has my right hon. Friend read the Report and the memorandum presented to the Committee by International Aeradio Ltd.? Will he tell me what any expert Committee could get in breadth of knowledge which is not given in this memo-

randum? This organisation is used in Tripoli by the United States for all its operations—I am not arguing whether that should be the case with our forces—and in case of emergency or war its personnel would be taken over. The Report says that if we had used this organisation, we would have saved £82,000. No expert Committee could have found out more.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not disagree. Strange to relate, I have read the Report and have even waded through the questions and answers and I am generally conversant with the situation. The evidence given by the civil company endorses what I am saying. The only question which arises is what happens if war occurs. Many things would then happen. Hon. Members will know that in the last war many of the Services were kept going by civilian experts.
Moreover, if there is any doubt about whether a civilian organisation can do the job properly, even in war, what are we doing about the transport of troops? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues deny B.O.A.C. the opportunity to tender for trooping contracts and those contracts go to civilian organisations. Presumably, if war came, those civilian organisations would immediately be turned over to the transportation of troops and would do their job.
I should like to see B.O.A.C. as well as the private organisations tendering for these contracts, but I am bound to say, from my limited experience of travelling with some of these organisations, that they do their job very well. At any rate, they are getting practical experience.
The Report is full of what might be called Committee points. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham himself found it difficult to give a wide survey of the situation in a debate like this. I was startled to find that one expert witness was asked how many married men were serving in the Army and said that he had no precise figures. During the war, the War Office knew how many married men there were in the Army in which there were more than 3 million troops. I believe that there was a Hollerith machine which kept the punched cards going, and the marital status of every serving soldier


was known. Why should there not be precise figures now? In those days, marriage allowances were paid, but even today the married man has to have something extra to his ordinary pay because of his marital status. If this evidence is true, I am shocked that the Service does not have such precise figures.
Paragraph 11 of the Report says:
Although no precise figures are readily available, it is accepted that the proportion of married men in the Forces has increased considerably in recent years.
I have some industrial and commercial experience and I should have thought that most big companies knew how many of their personnel—officially, at any rate—were married.
What I am trying to say is that the Sub-Committee has done its work very well and that travelling overseas, especially sometimes in Service conditions, must have been arduous—I know something about Service conditions overseas. Nevertheless, it has presented only a sketch of what is happening to our Forces. The right hon. Gentleman is now in charge of the three Services. I had many apprehensions and doubts about approving that policy and the right hon. Gentleman knows that so had many senior serving officers. However, the right hon. Gentleman has got the amalgamation of the three Services. We do not know how it will turn out, but it is clear that he has to do considerable homework. Whether he will permit a Defence Committee of the House of Commons to assist him, I do not know.
I was recently reading a book, "The Spectrum of Strategy", by Air Vice-Marshal Kingston-McCloughry, who is an acknowleged expert on these matters and who has written several books on defence problems after leaving the Service. On page 44 he says:
It is in this sphere that the work of a Cold War Committee"—
this is, a specialised Committee which we have been discussing—
could be so fruitful.
In a similar way military chiefs or Services concern themselves too largely with their respective Services to the detriment of an overall genuine military policy or strategy.
The Secretary of State has the opportunity now to go ahead a little further with the organising of the Services.
When I speak of a Defence Committee, I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House—nor my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who has a Motion on the Order Paper—will think that I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject. The House of Commons has to keep thoroughly up to date if it is to do its work, and in the course of our investigations we may come across deficiencies or inefficiencies. We may use those as a stick with which to beat the Government, but my attitude has always been that in defence it is not so much that big stick we want as an alteration in Government policy, in some respects, so as to deal with what is uppermost—the defence of our country against any possible aggressor.
I have vivid recollections of two world wars. The Expeditionary Force that went overseas in the First World War—and I was a member of it—had its defects, but it was a fine, well-balanced and well-equipped force. It was able to do its job on the left of the line in holding up the German armies—helped, it is true, by a very large French force. We were nowhere near so well prepared in the Second World War.
The First World War came after the investigations of the Esher Committee after the Boer War. That Committee made various suggestions, one of which was that there should be a Financial Secretary at the War Office. I was appointed to that position in 1945, and I had a very good Deputy Under-Secretary. We had to deal with certain very difficult matters—notably, the way the troops were juggling with Reichsmarks in Germany. That caused a good deal of perturbation in this House, and gave me a good deal of trouble. That alteration in the War Office resulted from a recommendation made by the Esher Committee, and I believe that it was partly as the result of another of that Committee's recommendations that we had that first-class Expeditionary Force in 1914. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) were able to take part in our debates today; he would know, because he is on record has having called attention to many of those defects.
I believe that the time is ripe for another such committee of prominent people, not necessarily all military


people but all having sufficient knowledge of their subject to go into the question of, as it were, the administration of the Services. Some of their suggestions might result in a cut in defence costs—I do not know. But I do know that, if the tendency we have seen in the last few years for defence costs to increase continues, a time will come when Government may be in jeopardy in introducing their defence Estimates, despite the co-operation that has been maintained between the two sides of the House since the last war.
I do not want the Secretary of State to think that I am pinpricking the Sub-Committee or criticising him personally. He has in him the ability to make this amalgamated defence force something worth while. God forbid that we should ever have to try it out, but do not let us ever have to think that if a big war broke out we might find ourselves wanting. In 1939, we had time until America and Russia were brought in and turned the tables; we shall not have that time on the next occasion. Indeed, we may not have that war—the nuclear war—that so many experts think would come about.
We may have a different kind of war. No country in the world, and I include Russia, would willingly press the button to start such a war. It is up to us as a House of Commons to see that the conventional forces can do their jobs, that those in them get the best possible conditions we can provide, and that, even if we cannot sleep soundly in our beds, we can at least feel that we have defence forces which, probably in alliance with our friends, can defend us against all likely aggression, wherever it may come from.

4.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): It may be convenient if I intervene in the debate at this stage. First, I want to say how much I value the Report of the Estimates Committee. It helps me considerably in my problems. It is centred on the very subjects that are uppermost in our minds today in the Ministry of Defence, and nothing could be more helpful to us than to have the views of hon. Members from both sides who have been looking at some of these matters for themselves. Any facilities that I

can give to the Estimates Committee, or to its Sub-Committees, I shall certainly give, and I shall elaborate on that aspect presently.
I welcome also the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), who, I think, expressed general sentiments about our forces that are shared by everyone in the House. Reports of this kind are bound, to some extent, to say what is wrong—why have a Report at all unless one can put one's finger on one or two things that were wrong? But I particularly valued the fact that in paragraph 129 the Committee emphasised that there was a lot that was right as well. It does not even require the Report to show that quite a lot is right; the members of the three Services have in recent months demonstrated that quite a lot is right with our forces.
I should like, first, to deal with accommodation, because that takes up quite a big part of the Report, and then I want to say something about the wider issues of military administration, with which a good deal of the Report is also concerned. These men are volunteers—let us never forget that. They come along, with all their family problems and the rest, and say that they are prepared to serve in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, and it would be the general wish of the House, as it has seemed to me to be the sentiment of the speeches we have so far heard, that we should see to it that these men have decent conditions and amenities, and are properly looked after.
Security of tenure is an important consideration, but I ask the House to be a little careful how we deal with it. Let hon. Members name a base to me which somebody is not threatening at this moment. I do not mean that I regard it as insecure, but there is someone threatening almost every base in which there are British forces at present, and if the fact that someone is threatening a base is to be taken as a reason for clamping down on all construction in it our forces overseas will have a miserable time. We should, therefore, use the security of tenure point a little carefully, though I recognise that this is an important factor in our considerations.
Soldiers, sailors and airmen, of course, get married, like other men, and raise families, and when they do that the way in which their wives and children are treated is something very relevant to our problems in the military sphere. I know that the House would wish me to say that the news of the death last night, after an illness of some weeks, of Sir James Grigg is something which we record with regret, and that we pay our tribute to a great public servant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Among the many things that he did was to pay a great deal of attention and to devote a great part of his life to the particular problems which we are discussing now. Among other things, he produced the Grigg Report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting, paragraph 143 of which says:
Perhaps the most important single factor influencing men who stay in the Services is the quality of the living accommodation, and in the case of the married man its availability.
That remains just as true today as it was then.
We have about 172,000 men in the Army, and approaching half of them are overseas. Frankly, there is a limit to the length of time that it is reasonable to ask a man to stay overseas unaccompanied by his family. In the Army and the Royal Air Force that limit is generally taken to be about 12 months. In the Navy it generally tends to be a little longer, about 18 months. I fully endorse the view expressed in the Fifth Special Report that this question of married accommodation is one of the most difficult problems of administration at an overseas base.
When we have the wives we must have the married quarters. We have the children and we have the extra hospital accommodation and the schools. Some of the accommodation is temporary, but a lot of it is on a permanent basis. A great deal of permanent or quasi-permanent building has to go on and, therefore, one looks at what one's policy must be. I accept that policy in administration and in finance are pretty closely mixed together.
To take Aden as an example, there, in effect, we have limited the number of families to 3,780, which is a little

over half the married entitlement. The effect of that is that the bulk of the fighting troops in Aden are today unaccompanied. 45 Royal Marine Commando, about whom we have all been reading with some pride at the way in which they are conducting themselves in these difficult operations, are unaccompanied. They are living there in single accommodation. This means that if we put troops overseas unaccompanied we must honour the obligation within about 12 months of bringing them home and letting them join their families. They must know the plan, and it must be an honoured plan so that at the end of the tour they really do go home.
The results of this policy in Aden have effected considerable savings. We do not have to build so much hospital accommodation and there is a limit to the expansion of schools and the rest, but the corollary must be that, first, we press on with the provision of married quarters at home. We cannot throw their wives out when we send them abroad. Secondly, and equally important, we must have reasonable amenities for the single men when they are abroad. By reasonable amenities, I agree, we should mean air conditioning, reasonable provision in the way of clubs and swimming pools, and so on. We must make life tolerable for a man in these circumstances, particularly if we are sending him abroad without his wife and family. This is the pattern adopted in Aden. It will vary between one theatre and another because the conditions vary, but in general the principle must be the same.
We must recognise that the provision of family accommodation is costly. The balance between how many families and how many unaccompanied is a matter of policy and will vary in each case. Once the decision has been taken, the provision of the houses is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I believe that that is the right decision because that Department has enormous experience of building generally and has great resources and overhead organisation.
I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham was disappointed in the evidence that he had from the Ministry. It was taking over


this vast new task almost at the time when the Estimates Committee was completing its Report, and it is sometimes difficult to give a complete account of what is going on just at the moment when one is taking over a new job. However, we are fully conscious of the problems set out in the Committee's first recommendation and, as I have said, in principle, we accept them.
The decision whether to hire or to build permanently is not easy. One cannot do it just on the basis of cost. It is a question of how far away one can have the men and how far one meets full operational requirements if the men are 5 miles or 10 miles away. There is also the question of safety, as in Cyprus. If one can hire, is it right to hire outside the sovereign base? There may be questions of conditions as in Tobruk. What are the problems if one goes as far from El Adem as Tobruk? It is a complex of a great number of different factors.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not entirely a matter of cost accounts, but a matter of cost. I am surprised that the Estimates Committee did not make inquiries about the total cost that would be entailed in providing all the married accommodation required. The right hon. Gentleman might apply his mind to that. Has he any information about the estimated cost of providing married quarters?

Mr. Thorneycroft: A great part of the Estimates Committee's Report is concentrated on this point. The deduction it makes is that which I made, that one of the greatest costs in overseas bases is just this factor that one has to take it base by base. Conditions vary in different bases, but I have mentioned how we are tackling it in Aden and the conclusions that we have reached in that case.
I turn to wider aspects of military administration, because a great deal of the Report is concerned with it. The Committee refers to the problem of stores and of costing arrangements between the various Departments, the employment of civilians, and so on. The recommendations in the Report are really more illustrative than comprehensive of the problems which the Committee met. I think that the Committee sets it out rather well

in paragraph 128. This is the nub of the matter, and I should like to read the passage:
The criticism which constantly recurs in the Report is that of shortcomings in co-operation between the three Services. In Your Committee's opinion the results of the inquiry so far support the Government's decision to integrate the headquarters organisations of the Service Departments. They hope that this decision will act as a spur to further integration at military bases overseas.
This is the point to which the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw was directing attention.
As I say, paragraphs 62 to 80, which are really the main paragraphs on this theme, do not lead to specific recommendations, but they represent a very powerful argument, to my mind, in favour of the decision which the House took to have a single integrated unified Ministry of Defence because with it we are provided with the opportunity at least to improve matters in various directions.
In the discussions which led to this unified Ministry of Defence, there was, as the House well knows, a school of thought, which persisted for quite a long time, that all administration ought to be left in three single Service Departments and that the centre, as it were, should concern itself only with policy. I never shared this view. I have always regarded policy and administration as being closely interlocked. It is right that we should decentralise, of course, and a greet deal of administration must always be decentralised to various parts of the Ministry of Defence dealing with single-Service issues, but the final responsibility must be fairly and squarely on the Secretary of State of the day. It must be within his province to identify problems, to ask for certain areas to be studied, to take certain pieces of machinery and see that they are integrated centrally. This must be the responsibility of the man at the top of the Ministry for the time being.
The House will realise that this is a big problem. There are 25,000 men on the staff of the Ministry of Defence. They are organised on a single-Service basis at present. I am talking now four weeks after integration has taken place. There are some hallowed Service traditions and customs there. The Services are engaged in actual hostilities in quite a number of parts of the world. This is


the background against which we are carrying out reorganisation, and I can tell the House that the great asset which I have here is that there is widespread awareness in the Services of the need to press forward with this reorganisation and undertake some of the integration.
I wish now to give my reflections on the problems raised by the Committee. The first reflection is that this is all a very large-scale matter. What we are dealing with is comparable in size to the largest business in this country. When one has something as big as that, it is necessary to have proper machinery to identify the problems, to say what are the stages at which one will tackle those problems and what the priorities should be. No one can say that he wants to start integrating just anywhere he likes. One has to identify the places where it is worth while trying to bring things closer together and from which real improvements are likely to flow.
This is achieved in the Ministry on the civil side, as the House will remember from our debates, by the Second Permanent Under-Secretary, who is in charge of the Defence Secretariat, and on the military side by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel and Logistics). These two men, one on the civil side and one on the military side, work jointly and permanently very closely together, and their job is to study the very questions which are dealt with centrally in this Report.
The way our mind is working is this. First, it is clear that there is great scope for rationalisation in the supply systems of the three services. We are taking steps to seize the opportunities. We are studying the supply arrangements themselves. There is a variety of stores of common use, if I may so put it, for instance, motor transport, clothing, and petrol, oil and lubricants. We are considering the advisability of arrangements for the central purchasing, storage and distribution of items of this character. When I say "central", I do not necessarily mean that one must set up a new piece of machinery, which would only add to the numbers. Very often, it may be very much better to take the major user and make that user responsible for the lot. It may be the Army in one case; it may be the Air Force in another.

One can take one user and make that user responsible over the whole field for the same store which is really of common use.
Second, we are trying to overcome the impediments to standardisation of this kind. Inevitably, there are many impediments if one has had three systems growing up side by side, each doing things a little differently. The method of indenting for stores is different. The name of the same store may be different. In each of the three Services, probably, a hammer is called something different. The cataloguing is different. The whole systems are different.
I assure the House that it is quite a big administrative task to find a way of bringing these things together. We are trying to introduce, or accelerate the introduction of, common systems of stores cataloguing, based, if we can upon the N.A.T.O. cataloguing system since, clearly, there is advantage in doing it on an international basis, particularly if one intends to set up a new method. We are resolute in the drive that we are making for standardisation, and also in the use of computers in stores management, because very great advances can be made with these as a tool of management.
We are also considering the possibilities of greater pooling on the repair side. We are doing some pilot studies on this. Of course, it is no good imagining that one can do it right across the field. Motor transport is the first priority which occurs to the mind, and we are considering whether we could centralise or rationalise the repair arrangements in motor transport for all the defence Services. In this, I am hoping that we shall be able to associate expert advice from outside industry with our own advisers in improving the efficiency with which this work is done. We may in the future proceed also to aircraft, small craft and the rest; but this is another part of the job.
A field mentioned by the Committee to which we attach very high priority is the administration of Service land. There is an enormous amount of property owned now by the Ministry of Defence. It is really a vast estate. I am now able to announce that there is to be a


single centralised administration for land. This will come under the Army Department and under the authority and administration of the Minister of Defence for the Army. It will cover all land owned by the Ministry of Defence. In my judgment, this arrangement will be of considerable advantage. Incidentally, it is an example of what I meant by across-the-board responsibility.
The House will remember that, in our earlier debates, I said not only that the Ministers of Defence would have particular and great responsibilities for the administration of individual Services, but, also, that we should increasingly find some of them taking across-the-board responsibility. This is an example of one sort of across-the-board responsibility.
The Estimates Committee also mentioned signals. On a lot of these matters it did not come down to specific recommendations, but I do not think that that matters. What matters is that it deals with the problem here, and it is the underlying problem that matters. Otherwise, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw that one gets down to Committee points. The Estimates Committee mentioned the need to deal with signals. If one goes to an overseas base one finds in one corner, an R.A.F. signals station, in another the Navy's and in another the Army's. One cannot imagine that one will solve all these problems quickly, or that necessarily one ought to come down to one, because very often it may be as well to have more than one signal station in a particular base.
But we have centralised signals in the Ministry of Defence. We have centralised them in such a way that there is only one signals organisation in the Ministry of Defence through which outward and inward signals pass. They have been centralised not only for the purpose of being the centre of a worldwide network of communications, but for policy decisions as well. In those circumstances, I think that we really are on the way to the building up of that centralised worldwide network, on a single basis or an all Services basis, of communications which the Committee quite rightly had in mind.
I could go on over a wide range of these things. I will mention one more—education and training. There are enormous opportunities here, because

with the advance of technology and the introduction of a Regular Army and with the background of Reports like the Robbins and Newsom Reports, and with the revolution that is taking place in technical training in this country, it is quite obvious that the Services must have a new look at all their training arrangements. In this they are being helped by the Estimates Committee. Evidence is being given before the Estimates Committee this afternoon on this subject, so in this, as in the matters that we have been discussing earlier, there can be the closest link between the Ministry of Defence and the work of the Estimates Committee in these fields.
These are all quite considerable exercises. They are being pressed forward with energy and enthusiasm. I do not pretend that we can solve all these problems quickly. They are enormous and they involve an immense amount of work and study; but we are well aware of them. I think that we have got out some of the top priorities, at any rate, and are tackling some of the ones which I think the whole House would wish us to tackle as a first priority.
Reorganisation started, of course, overseas. It was rather late at the centre. The commands overseas were centralised a little before the Ministry of Defence and the Service Ministries and there was a time when reorganisation in those commands was actually being held up, in my view, because we had not been reorganised at the centre. Now that we are reorganising at the centre it is possible to make some further advances in the overseas bases.
I attach the very greatest importance to the responsibility of a commander-in-chief overseas. I regard his responsibilities, like mine, as covering administration as well as policy and consider it to be his duty to intervene where he thinks proper—anywhere in the administration within his base—and to realise that he is dealing now in London with an integrated Ministry in which we are altogether trying to solve these problems upon a defence basis.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but there are a few more matters that I want to mention. There is the question of finance. My hon. and gallant Friend for Buckingham was


absolutely right. The questions of programmes, budgetting and finance are absolutely central to all these problems. I am not talking about accounting development. Accounting is done by four separate accounting officers of the three Services and the Ministry of Defence in the centre. I think that that is quite right. I am talking about the forward planning and estimating.
Up to now it has all been done on the basis of the subheads of single Service votes dealing with pay, research and development, production and the rest. It has been an enormous exercise. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham was quite right when he said that he asked how much this would cost and he found the greatest difficulty in getting an answer. This is really basically due to what I regard as an outdated system of forward estimating. What is wanted is to be able to estimate not simply what a base costs, but what a rôle costs, what a weapons system costs, and in the future to be able to take a forward look at what these things really will cost. This is what we are trying to do now in the Ministry of Defence.
We have reorganised the Ministry, as the House knows, with a Deputy Secretary in charge of programmes and budgets. We are appointing staff for the purpose of trying to estimate what these total rôles and tasks really involve. We may have to use some extra staff to do it, but I ask the House not to be too pedantic as to whether we have a few more or less. It is worth anything to get this right, because it is an essential tool of management and unless we can forecast what the various strategic rôles cost, and what weapons systems will mean in the future, it is not possible to make decisions with the full knowledge which I think the Government require and to which the House of Commons is properly entitled.
These are the arrangements that we have made. The House will see that we are decentralising and that it is not just a matter of a few men at the top. Thousands of decisions are being taken every day in every part of the Ministry of Defence. It would be quite impossible, and the system would break down, if we tried to take all the adminis-

trative decisions at the centre. The vast bulk of them, in terms of number, is taken in various parts of the Ministry, often on a single Service basis.
But we have adopted the right machinery to identify individual opportunities of centralisation and rationalisation. We are pressing on with this. We have the machinery there. The pilot schemes are being instituted and in some cases, like lands organisation, we are already establishing the central organisation that is required. Indeed, as we go forward the House can help—this is a matter for the House—in the way it addresses its mind to these problems.
I hope that in next year's White Paper it will be possible to do it on a different basis altogether from what we have had before and to try to do it on a basis of tasks and rôles, and the rest, so that we can really have a look at it, with perhaps a chapter on procurement, a chapter on the rôle in South-East Asia and another on the rôle in Europe. It would be even more valuable if the House of Commons would like to debate it on that basis rather than just to have the same old debates on the Service Estimates.
I welcome this Report, because I think that it is a most valuable one for any Government to have. I hope that we shall have more like it. The more we have the easier it will be to have a debate and address our minds to some of the great problems of defence and military administration. I am grateful to the House for giving us this opportunity.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: In connection with the immensely important announcement which my right hon. Friend has made about the unification of the lands branches of the three Services, which the whole House will welcome, can he tell us when he thinks that may come about, and whether he has considered the possibility of issuing a White Paper dealing with the administrative arrangements which will necessarily follow?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will consider the latter point. It might be quite useful to have a short White Paper. I should be happy to do that. As to the timing, the decision is now made and the necessary dispositions will start forthwith. I do


not say that we can reorganise the whole thing in a few weeks, but we should be able to do it over the coming months. It will not take a very great deal of time.

5 0 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: It is the Gospel which says that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 who have not gone astray. That is true of the Government, even if it is a deathbed repentance. The proposals which the Secretary of State has been laying before the House have been put by us to the Government in defence debate after defence debate for the last few years. We are at least extremely grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of reorganising the whole basis of Service budgeting along the lines that we have so often suggested.
I am not sure that it was a convenient time for the Secretary of State to intervene. It might have been more useful if he could have commented on many of the points likely to be made in the debate. I think that he also failed in his responsibility to the House in that he did not answer sufficiently the many specific and very important complaints about Service practice which are revealed in the Select Committee's Report, many of which were taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham).
The Secretary of State said one thing which would serve as a basis for the whole of our discussion, namely, that economics are now at the heart of Britain's defence policy. We face soaring costs in every field of defence—pay and allowances, married quarters for the men and women in the Forces, and in both conventional and atomic weapons. This year the defence budget went up three times more than the gross national product. If we are to take seriously the prediction of defence expenditure over the next four years published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in January, the increase for three of the four years has already gone without there being any major expenditure on the five or six major weapons projects to which the Government are, in principle, committed.
I think that hon. Members on both sides must agree that defence is bound

to remain a very expensive business for Great Britain. For that reason, it is more vital than ever that we should get value for money, that we should not spend money on anything which is not absolutely essential and that we should ensure that any money which is spent is spent without waste. The long list of cancelled aircraft and missile projects which we have often discussed is clear enough evidence that the first of these conditions is not being fulfilled. The debate which we had last week on the Ferranti affair was one illustration of the failure to get value for money even in a project which was desirable if not essential.
It seems to me that the Select Committee has unearthed a number of additional examples of waste and defective financial control, and it deserves the House's thanks for its work in so doing. I think that hon. Members on both sides welcome the new procedure which allows the House to discuss Select Committee reports as of right in Government time. I only wish, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said, that there was some provision by which the House could follow up the issues raised in the reports and check whether action promised by Ministries has, in fact, been taken. I will return to that point later.
It is not sufficient to accept a promise by a Ministry to put something right when we have so many examples from reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates, one of which is referred to in this Select Committee's Report, of action promised by Departments which is never taken.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think the hon. Member is aware that the Estimates Committee often has a follow-up like that. A year or so afterwards, it gets in touch with the Departments concerned and says, "What has been done about this?". The machinery is there.

Mr. Healey: I agree that the machinery is there, but I do not feel that the House is able to make full use of it. There is one example in the Report which we are discussing of a promise which was made by the Department in 1958 to consider amalgamating the lands branches in Cyprus, but no


action had been taken on it when the Select Committee looked at the situation again four years later. Frankly, an accidental inquiry into the problem by the Committee four years later is not sufficient. It would be better if we had a more regularly accepted machinery by which these problems were kept under more continuous review. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree with me.

Sir G. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman can always ask a Question.

Mr. Healey: I agree, but we cannot always get a Question answered, as the hon. Gentleman and many of us know all too well.
When this Report was published, public attention was concentrated on the more striking cases of individual waste, to none of which, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State referred this afternoon. Notably, we had the case of Fort Tarshyne, the 5-bedroom residence of the rear-admiral in Aden, which cost £46,150, excluding the site value, £6,600 of which went on furniture alone, although it is possible for the same Service organisation to put up two to three bedroom flats for serving officers in Aden at a price of £6,100. No one who has read the Select Committee's Report will feel satisfied with the explanations given for this extravagance by the Admiralty and the other personnel concerned. It is difficult to think of a more striking example of an 18th century aristocratic folly. It seems to me extraordinarily extravagant to have produced this no doubt attractive and exciting building in Aden, where there are so many more urgent calls on Government expenditure.
There is the case to which the Secretary of State again failed to refer of the building of 59 married quarters at St. Patrick's, Malta, at a cost of £350,000 double the amount paid for similar and, according to the Committee, more attractive quarters built on the neighbouring island of Cyprus. Incidentally, most of this money was spent when it had already been decided to run down the Forces in Malta.
Another case of waste concerns the Gilgil School in Kenya and the building of the Templer Barracks in Kenya at a

cost of £3½ million, which, I understand, have now been handed over to the Kenya Government. I cannot help wondering, as other hon. Members in similar previous debates have wondered, whether it would be possible for the Department of Defence to employ more qualified accountants to work in the branches of the Services concerned with financial control. I understand that during a recent court-martial it was revealed that there was only one qualified accountant in the East Africa Command, and he just happened to be there because he was a non-commissioned officer on National Service.
What I think is more disturbing is the evidence in the Select Committee's Report that central control of defence expenditure is seriously deficient in many respects. The Secretary of State may be right—we all hope that he is—in believing that some of the new arrangements which he has announced this afternoon will give more effective central control. Perhaps I can be allowed to quote a rather discouraging paragraph in the Select Committee's Report. In paragraph 72, the Select Committee, in talking of the amalgamation of works services under the Ministry of Public Building and Works, makes this point:
Nonetheless, they"—
that is the Committee—
are concerned lest the transfer of responsibility should result merely in an increase in the number of higher posts held, with little corresponding increase in economy or efficiency.
The Secretary of State would be the first to admit that changes of organisation at the top, particularly when they involve the appointment of additional personnel to cover a job, cannot be relied upon to produce the sort of economies to which he has referred.
There are various respects in which I feel that the existing arrangements are revealed to be seriously deficient by the Sub-Committee's Report. In the first place, as is pointed out again and again, the Ministry has not been reacting fast enough to political decisions about the future of bases. I am not now raising the question of whether the Government as a whole should have recognised earlier than 1962 the inevitability of giving independence to Kenya. What is disturbing is that when a decision had


already been taken by the Cabinet on a transfer of power in Kenya or on running down the base in Malta expenditure on Service installations continued for some time at very serious loss to the taxpayer.
For example, paragraph 81 of the Report—this is an unconfirmed report, neither confirmed nor denied by the War Office—says that £93,000 was spent in Kenya in architects' fees for works never carried out. In paragraph 82 it is stated that one Army workshop building was dismantled, re-erected and dismantled again within a period of three years. Paragraph 83 of the Report reveals that in the case of a guided missile depot built in Malta, £18,000 was spent on producing test facilities for naval missiles although a decision had already been taken not to test naval missiles in Malta.
Again, according to the Committee, £194,000 was spent on a naval air station in Malta, and of that £27,500 was spent on a control tower and air school which it had already been decided were not going to be used in the programme for the rundown of the Forces in Malta. It seems to me that there is clearly a case here for very much more rigorous application right through the Services of Cabinet decisions of this nature.
The second serious failure revealed in the Committee's Report, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and, indeed, which I think he admitted through the whole length of his speech, is the failure of co-operation between the Services, a failure which it seems to me was not inherent in the separate organisation of the Services at that time. Essentially the failure must be laid at the door of the Minister in London, because, according to the Committee, we had very good inter-Service co-operation in Cyprus but very bad inter-Service co-operation in Malta. There was nothing inherent in the organisation of the Forces at that time which would have prevented the Services in Malta co-operating as well as in Cyprus, and if there was a failure of Service cooperation the fault lies with the Minister in Britain.
What is most disturbing, because it throws a light on what we can expect from the new organisation, is the failure of inter-Service co-operation even in

areas where combined headquarters had already been set up. If we are to expect a great improvement in inter-Service co-operation through the new Central Organisation of Defence in London, one would have expected that the establishment of combined headquarters in Aden and Singapore would have led to the sort of economies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In fact, however, the Sub-Committee continually refers to very serious defects in inter-Service co-operation in areas like Aden and Bahrain where combined headquarters had already been working for two years along precisely the sort of lines along which the new central organisation is intended to work in London.
This seems to me to be a discouraging precedent and bears out the point which I made earlier, that in themselves changes at the top cannot be relied upon to produce the sort of economies which I am sure we are all hoping for. I would like to probe a little more deeply into one issue raised in the Report, and to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech, and that is the whole question of Lands and Works Services. Many of us suspect—and we do not blame the Government for this—that works services were originally taken away from the separate Services and given to the Ministry of Public Building and Works in order to teach the Services a lesson. Because they could not agree with one another on integrating the work services on a Service basis the whole thing was taken away from them and put under a civil Ministry, the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
We have the evidence of the Report, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham referred, and which I thought the Secretary of State confirmed in what he said, that this transfer of works services to civilian responsibility led to a substantial period of dislocation. No one would question that it took the Ministry quite a time to cope with this entirely novel type of problem with which it was asked to deal.
We would all welcome very heartily the decision of the Minister to amalgamate the lands departments of the various Services. If one is to take at all seriously what the right hon. Gentleman's Department said on the proposal


in 1958, I must say that it would have been helpful and encouraging to the House if the Minister had been able to show how his Department then was wrong, because I quote now from the Observation of the Ministers in the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates for 1958–59 when it was asked to give its views on an amalgamation of these services. Paragraph 4 on page 5 of the Report states:
It is difficult to see how integration could lead to worthwhile staff economies."—
I hope that the Minister will listen to this, because I hope that he took it into account when he took his decision. As I was saying, the paragraph states:
It is difficult to see how integration could lead to worthwhile staff economies. Of itself, it could not reduce the amount of work to be done. It is more likely to increase the amount of correspondence and consultation, because matters which can now be settled within each Service Department would have to be referred outside to the central organisation. The central organisation would have to manage a total estate on behalf of the three Services of vast proportions and complexity; it would be more unweildy than the present system, and would be the wrong kind of organisation for a type of work where a close day-to-day association with departmental staffs is necessary for efficient administration. It would involve either the creation of strong liaison staffs in the individual Service Departments, or arrangement for secondment on an extensive scale. In neither case would economies result.
I know that the Secretary of State will not mind my pulling his leg over that, but I think it should be a lesson to all not to accept too readily arguments from Civil Service Departments which are asked to consider these matters. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman, even, as I said earlier, on his political deathbed, is finding courage to stand up to conservatism at least in the Departments.
The one suggestion that I would make is that now that we are to have a central lands department for the three Services, is there not a good deal to be said for transferring the works services back to the Ministry of Defence? It seems to me that the works services now done by the civilian Ministry are easily separable from the rest of their operations and that the major case for putting this under a civilian Ministry was the ingrained separatism of the Services some years ago. Now that the Minister,

through the new access of liberal courage which he has found in himself, has amalgamated the Services and created a central organisation, there is surely a strong case for putting the works services back into the Ministry of Defence where they can co-operate far more closely, intimately, and continuously with the military Services which they exist to serve than they can in a civilian Department responsible, after all, to a Minister who is not otherwise concerned with defence at all. I would like to put that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, although I would not expect any final reply on it today.
What I think is most serious in the Report is the reference to the continual inability of the Ministry to produce the facts and figures which would enable economic decisions to be taken. This is something which the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham spoke about and which recurs again and again in the Report. I take two examples of this failure, one important and the second all-important. First, there is the question of married quarters.
As the Secretary of State said, the right treatment of the married serviceman is the key to the morale of the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is also the key to the size of the Army, because the biggest single deterrent against volunteering for the Army is the fear of the potential recruit that his wife and family will not be properly looked after or, if he is a bachelor, that his future wife and family will suffer penalties which a civilian family does not undergo.
No one will deny that to take the right decision on this is a very difficult matter. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, what is the right decision in Aden may not be the right decision in Hong Kong; what is right for the Royal Air Force may not be right for the Army. Indeed, one can say, because individuals differ on this, that what is right for some men in the same Service is not right for others.
But what we have not had so far—and after all this was a major recommendation of the Sub-Committee—is a careful inter-Service analysis of the relative costs of married quarters, hirings and private accommodation. We all agree that this is not an easy problem


and, moreover, that the situation will be different as between one base and another. But, if we are to take a rational economic decision, it should be possible to get a good deal further than the Ministry had when the Sub-Committee was investigating its operations.
A far more important aspect, on which the Secretary of State only touched in his interesting speech, is that of the virtues of short, unaccompanied tours of duty overseas compared with those of longer accompanied tours. I accept that one cannot take the rigorous economic view that no base whose future is uncertain should have money spent on it. That would mean that we would have no Army for service overseas at all. But clearly we do not want to repeat the mistake we made in Kenya, where we spent £5½ million on a base which was given up before it was ready to be used.
Again, it should not be beyond the wit of man in 1964 to analyse more carefully than has so far been done the cost and impact on recruiting—because this is the key to the problem—of short, unaccompanied tours as against longer accompanied tours. Many of us who have travelled to the Far East and have spent a night or two at Gan have found that certainly in that R.A.F. base the short, unaccompanied 12 month tour works very well. Morale is extremely high, although, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it collapses if a man is kept a week beyond the 12 months. It is essential obviously to be able to fulfil our obligations to a man who is serving a specified period without his family.
But it seems to me—even more after reading the Report again, since I raised this question in the defence debate—that the provision of married quarters is the key to the size and efficiency of the Regular Army, and I still deeply regret that the request by the War Department for a considerable increase in the allotment for married quarters over the increase given in the White Paper was rejected.
Now I turn to the second and all-important issue, to which the Secretary of State referred very encouragingly at the end of his speech. It really was a shocking thing that, when the Sub-Committee made its researches, it was

impossible for anyone in the Ministry of Defence to tell it the cost of an overseas base without a special accounting exercise. Even more deplorable was the excuse given for this failure. I think I should read that excuse, because it throws some light on the extraordinary muddle into which our defence policy has fallen in recent years. Paragraph 25 said that the reason given to the Sub-Committee for this failure to be able to give the cost of a base was
…that the overall cost of a base is not of any particular interest; it is known broadly whether a particular station is a very costly commitment or a comparatively inexpensive one, but a base, it was claimed, is maintained for the operation of forces, and their redeployment is undertaken for strategic reasons and not on financial grounds".
Really! This argument shows that the Ministry then was living in the 18th century and had no understanding either of the political rôle of our Forces in the second half of the 20th century or of the relevance of the cost of our Forces to the national economy as a whole. I want to give a few general reflections on this problem, because it is the core of the situation touched on in the Report.
None of our overseas bases today is necessary to Britain for her national survival. The national survival of this country depends on quite another factor—the so-called balance of terror between the Soviet bloc and the West in which the British bases in Aden and Singapore play little or no part. The justification for our overseas bases is the protection of interests and a fulfilment of obligations to allies or to the United Nations or—and I say this quite seriously—to humanity, for we have an interest, quite apart from our juridical obligations, in the peace and stability of the world.
That is the justification of our overseas bases. Therefore we must try, however difficult it is, to form some estimate of the cost of maintaining a military capacity in one particular theatre overseas so that we can relate that to the losses we might suffer if we relied solely on diplomacy to protect our interests or to fulfil our obligations.
No one who has thought seriously about this problem will deny that it is appallingly difficult and complicated, but it is our duty to the taxpayer, to the country and to the survival of our


people to try to think rationally about the problem and, in so far as it is possible to quantify its elements. This is what the Ministry, at the time when the Sub-Committee examined it, refused in principle to try to do, because it thought that it was not relevant.
That attitude throws a blinding and frightening light on the background of thought in which the present muddle and confusion in our defence policy has developed. If we are to look at this seriously, one problem concerns which of the various types of military capacity overseas is cheapest and likely to be politically most effective. Will it be fixed bases on land in foreign countries, or Colonies? Will it be seaborne forces floating somewhere in the ocean near the theatres where they may be used? Will it be airborne forces, perhaps ferried from the United Kingdom or Australia?
It is high time that this sort of study was undertaken because, if we are to plan our defence policy ten years ahead—and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this is essential because of the eight-year development period for new weapons systems—it is absolutely necessary now to try to think out these problems in this rational way.
Personally, I believe that the Prime Minister may be right, in saying, as he has said so often recently, that we are moving into a period when our national survival is guaranteed by the balance of nuclear power between the Western Alliance and the Soviet bloc and that global nuclear war between the two alliances is very unlikely. If this is so, the main rôle of our Forces, as far as our survival is concerned, is to make a relevant contribution to the alliance—that is to say, to make the sort of military contribution towards the Western alliance which the Western alliance needs. I should be out of order if I went over the arguments about the relevance of the deterrent, but obviously this is the major issue which arises in taking this decision.
The second rôle of our Forces is to protect our interests overseas and to fulfil our international obligations. How we protect our interests overseas and what we spend on them is a matter not

just of political and military judgment but also of economic judgment, and it is this element in the argument which has been grossly deficient in the planning of defence policy over the last ten years or so. What we need is a stringent analysis of the military cost of various types of force deployed in various types of ways and in various parts of the world in relation to the political and economic return from that expenditure.
The Estimates Committee's Report has shown that the Government have not only failed to achieve this examination but could not achieve it even if they wanted to do so, because there does not exist in the Ministry of Defence the type of financial and budgetary organisation and of planning organisation which is capable of making this sort of inquiry. To use the present structure of our defence accounting to get value for money in the atomic age is as impossible as to shoot down missiles with a bow and arrow. It simply cannot be done. The type of economic analysis which I think the Minister would like to see cannot be done with the present structure of Service budgeting and accounting. I very much hope that what the Secretary of State told us this afternoon indicates that at last he recognises the point and that at last the necessary changes are under way. But I must confess to a certain doubt whether he, at any rate in this Administration, can achieve it.

5.33 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I listened with great interest to the important observations of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) when he commented on the difficulties which had arisen owing to the rules which prevented the Estimates Committee from taking evidence overseas. I stress—because one or two hon. Members have used words which implied the contrary—that the regulations concerned prevent the Estimates Committee only from taking evidence overseas in a formal sense. Owing to the kindness and help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we were enabled to travel freely overseas, to see what we wished and to question whom we wished, but not, because of the regulations, to take formal evidence.
We prepared considerable notes about our investigations overseas. We investi-


gated very thoroughly overseas and we received, and are grateful for, a great deal of written information from various people and organisations overseas. But these could be no part of our report, because they were not evidence taken in the technical sense by the Estimates Committee. Moreover, some parts were of a secret nature and in any case could not have been included in a report which was to be published. The hon. Member said that spot checks were not enough, and I agree, but I do not accept that what we did, spread over months overseas, was in the nature of a spot check. We stayed an appreciable time in each place which we visited and we satisfied ourselves that we had seen what we required to see on each of the points in which we were taking an interest.
The Estimates Committee's procedure is based as a rule on a previous Estimates Committee's Report on the same Ministry and it is usually only when a new Ministry comes into being that the Estimates Committee starts de novo, and then, in any case, the Committee has some information to go on from some previous Report of the Estimates Committee or some other information. We were breaking new ground and, in that sense, we were pioneers. I have no doubt that when, as I very greatly hope, some further sub-committee of the Estimates Committee goes abroad, it will be able to work on our foundations, if I may so describe them, and to follow on where we left off. It will be very much easier for our successors once the ground has been broken in this way. Had we been able to publish the documents and information which we received overseas, our Report would have been twice the size and would perhaps then have gone further towards satisfying the right hon. Gentleman, but for reasons which I have given this could not be done.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the question of married quarters. This has been referred to by every speaker and is, perhaps, one of the most important features of the present situation in all the Services. We have a far higher proportion of married Service men in every Service than used to be the case. The tendency to marry younger is a feature of our time and may possibly be an

indication of the prosperity of the present generation. This is causing great difficulties not only overseas but, as my right hon. Friend said, also in this country. The question of proper accommodation for Service families unquestionably will have a very important effect on recruiting. Something must be done about it. Wherever our Service men are stationed, this question must be investigated.
It is generally agreed that each base overseas has a different problem. In some cases, as for example, in Bahrain, it is a problem of the availability of land where we want it. Hon. Members may be interested in the cost of land in the right areas of Bahrain; £33,000 an acre was quoted for the only plot on sale when we were there, and this is rather high even by British urban standards.
Whichever base one visits there is a different problem, but in my view the problem should be approached in the same way by each of the three Services. I would not say that one particular Service was always fortunate but we found in different bases that one or another of the Services seemed to be rather better off not only in barrack accommodation—a separate and also an important problem—but in both hiring and married quarters. In some cases we found that the entitlement seemed to be regarded differently between the Services. I have seen places—I will not go into detail—where practically the whole of one Service had quarters with fans and high ceilings and another Service had barrack quarters without fans and high ceilings.
After one had been in a base for 48 hours one could tell which Service owned the rooms which one inspected by looking at the amenities. That is not right. But I feel sure that now that we have these matters centralised it will be put right. It was quite noticeable in Cyprus that where barracks were used first by one Service and then by another, one Service would regard as a normal allocation for the accommodation considerably more men than the other Service could possibly squeeze in. This matter should be looked at.
Once this has been overcome we have to look at other major questions, because a growing part of our expenditure on


our bases is on what in N.A.T.O. is fashionably called the infrastructure. Something has been said about tenure in different bases. What I have very much in mind is that some of the buildings that we have seen are transplantable, but the great majority are not. As we are spending large sums of money on providing married quarters, I think that in some places it would be advisable to put up buildings which are capable of being moved. Here it is important to realise that the difference is not between construction in bricks, mortar and stone, and prefabricated construction, but the difference between transplantable and not-transplantable buildings, because even some prefabricated buildings cannot be moved.
In Bahrain we saw bungalows which had been transplanted from Ceylon. They were of an excellent standard, and were better than many of the married quarters in this country. I do not know what they would cost to produce now. They had been provided some years ago, but something of that kind should be seriously considered when we remember the great cost of providing quarters—rising in some cases to £8,000 per quarter for officers. I have no doubt that a transplantable bungalow of that type could be produced, transported, and erected on our bases for less than that sum, and in any case the advantage of being able to move the bungalow would greatly increase its value to the taxpayer, especially when there is any question of tenure.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) raised an important point when he spoke about the possibility of transferring the works services back to the Ministry of Defence. If these had not in the immediate past been moved to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, I think that that suggestion would have had merit, but, having seen a little of what is going on at the present time inside that Ministry, I know that it is having a little trouble in digesting the great deal of business which has been placed on its plate. The idea of moving works services back to the Ministry of Defence almost before they have been fully received by the Ministry of Public Building and Works would put everything back for a long time, and

I think that it would be a counsel of despair.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to short unaccompanied tours. This is an important and valuable point, and one which must be fully considered. The difficulty is that one can invite troops to accept a short unaccompanied tour of one year in four, perhaps, but not more than that. I know that in some areas, for example in El Adem, the waiting period for a proper quarter is nearly 12 months, and it is argued that people might as well be unaccompanied for 12 months and then come home. The difficulty—and this applies both to the Army and to the Royal Air Force when there is a good deal going on—is that the unfortunate unit concerned might well have to be away for two years out of four. I do not think that that would be acceptable. An unaccompanied tour of one year out of four is one thing. To be away for every other year is quite different, and again we have the problem of the families who are left behind in this country and are sometimes in difficulties when their husbands are spirited away on duty.
That brings me back to what my right hon. Friend said about married quarters in this country. In our anxiety to provide them overseas, we must not overlook the problem at this end. This again underlines the advantage of having a transplantable building which, in the event of a base being evacuated, could be brought back here where it would be very useful.
I think that the cost of the infrastructure of overseas bases is of great importance. By my calculation, it has risen 55 per cent. in the last five years, and is rising faster than the other costs. That is why we must look very closely at whether it is right to spend substantial sums of money on building permanent buildings, be they prefabricated or conventional, which are planned to last for 30 to 50 years at bases where we might not need them for so long. Witnesses for the Ministry of Public Building and Works said—and I welcome it—that the further development of married quarters will be one of the first tasks of the Ministry. I only say that when the Ministry puts up a building it should do so with a view to the length of time that we are reasonably certain to want to use it.
There is a point affecting bases which has not been referred to in this debate, and which is not given great prominence, though I think that it deserves it. Our bases are of the greatest possible value economically, and indeed to some extent socially, to the inhabitants of the areas in which they are sited. During our journeys we found that the British tax payer is very often not only the largest employer for a big area around the bases, but also provides a big injection of hard currency into areas which often sadly need it.
At some bases this factor has been used by adroit commanders, by local arrangements with contractors of various kinds, to provide additional accommodation. For example, in Cyprus a substantial number of Greek Cypriots have been persuaded to build blocks of flats expressly for letting as hirings to British Service families. This arrangement is of great advantage to both sides. The Greek Cypriots receive far higher rents than they would from their compatriots. On the other hand, it saves the British taxpayer capital and the flats form a useful link between British Service families and the local inhabitants.
Something of this is also going on in other bases which are not the subject of the Report, and I think that it should be encouraged in these days when all too many people in other parts of the world, including some of our allies, look curiously at our bases and talk about colonialism. A great deal of the money spent on these bases goes into the pockets of the local inhabitants. This fact should be made more widely known than it is at the present. The fact that these bases are a great asset to the areas in which they are sited, is sometimes overlooked by people who, with the best motives, but without full knowledge, see fit to criticise our occupation of them.
The sooner that we get the married quarters problem into perspective by building more of them, the better. The shorter the time that people have to wait in private accommodation, at great expense, and often under unfortunate conditions, the better it will be for everybody concerned.
I greatly hope that such amenities as air conditioning will be assessed on a base principle, and not on a Service

principle. In areas where air conditioning is necessary, it should be provided for everybody, and not just for one Service to the exclusion of the others.
My friends in the Navy are always in a little difficulty here. The majority of their people are ashore only for a few days at a time. After that they go off happily to their ships, which, in turn, are not often air conditioned either. We visited a "hot ship" in the Far East, and we found it very hot. In my opinion, if a station is entitled to air conditioning all the Services in that station should be entitled to it. It should be borne in mind that many naval personnel, of all ranks, live permanently ashore, doing work in the dockyards and things of that kind. The fact that some naval personnel are merely birds of passage should not prevent their fellows from enjoying amenities which are available to the other Services. The whole question should be assessed on the need for air conditioning in the base, and not on the need for it for any one Service in the base.
One point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East rather struck me. He referred quite rightly to the difficulty in arriving at the cost of a base. The answer that we were given suggested that this was not very important because the redeployment of forces is undertaken mainly for strategic reasons. In his comment on that the hon. Member rightly referred to these bases as being obligations to our allies, or to the United Nations. He went on to stress the necessity for costing them to see whether we should stay in them. I do not think that he meant to imply that in his view we should set a price on keeping our treaty obligations or fulfilling our obligations to our allies, and should say, "Up to this amount we will keep our treaty obligations and support our allies, but if the cost rises to that amount we will let them go hang."

Mr. Healey: I am glad to be able to clear up this matter, because if the hon. Member misunderstood me other hon. Members may have done so, too. He must know that the nature of our juridical obligation differs from case to case, and the amount that we spend militarily on backing up our treaty obligations also differs from case to case. We spend infinitely less on our CENTO commitment


than on our N.A.T.O. commitment although, juridically, the difference between the treaties is not great. In other cases, it is up to us to decide how to implement our obligations—for example, in the Gulf. I suggest that the amount that we commit to the fulfilment of these treaty obligations should depend to some extent on the importance to us of the issue at stake. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with that.

Sir Richard Glyn: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the issue at stake is a matter of principle—the question is whether we carry out our treaty obligations and support our allies, or tear those treaties up and desert our allies. That is the question. Whether or not money comes into this must be a matter for the hon. Gentleman. I cannot see that it does.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Apart from some derogatory references to Government policy in the military sphere and the suspicions voiced about the ability of the Secretary of State for Defence to undertake his somewhat formidable task of conducting the policy of the Ministry of Defence and its administration, this has been a largely non-partisan discussion. It is all the more welcome for that. Nevertheless, it appears to me that in all the circumstances it has been somewhat outmoded.
This may appear to be a digression, but it has a bearing on what I shall say later. Yesterday, a reference was made to changes in the accommodation of the House, and to the building of a new section which is to be Gothic in character. The procedure of this debate has also been largely Gothic in character. It is the kind of debate that we might have had many years ago. It is quite irrelevant to the present situation.
Let me furnish an example. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who spoke on behalf of the Estimates Committee, indicated that he and his colleagues had made a journey almost round the world. I make no complaint about that, although at the end of the day we might have asked whether their journey was

really necessary. Many of their discoveries must have been well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been accustomed to take part in defence debates and who have made some study of this important subject.
Let us take as an example what appeared to be the pièce de résistance of the Report, namely, the need for more suitable married quarters overseas. This topic has engaged the attention of successive Secretaries of State for War, Secretaries of State for Air, and Ministers of Defence for many years. It may be recalled—I say "may", because hon. Members have the capacity to forget what has happened in the past if it suits their purpose; especially hon. Members of the Government—that in 1950 the Government of the day, which was a Labour Government—I make that clear in case that is forgotten—introduced a huge housing loans scheme for military purposes and gave an impetus to the construction of married quarters both at home and overseas. This is a most formidable problem, as hon. Members have indicated, and as the Committee itself says in its Report.
The Secretary of State for Defence listened to what was said and commented on it, but he gave no indication of what was going to happen. He glossed over the question whether there were going to be more married quarters, and whether they were going to be improved in quality, because he had nothing constructive to say. Not a single word did he utter on that aspect of the Report and the request made in it for additional housing for married personnel. Not a word did he say which indicated that the Government intended to embark on the implementation of the Committee's proposals in the immediate or even the foreseeable future.
Instead he gave us a philosophical—almost an academic—dissertation on the new arrangements at the reconstructed Ministry of Defence, and how he envisaged his task. Again, everything that he said was very vague and nebulous. He never got down to brass tacks. That is precisely what we should be doing in this debate.
I want to pose a question to the members of the Estimates Committee


who, within the limitations imposed upon them by the Government and the Treasury, did an excellent job. They carried out investigations abroad and made certain discoveries, which are referred to in the Report. My question is, now that the Committee has reported, particularly on the subject of housing for married personnel—I will come to other matters if there is time—what is to be done about it? Is that a fair question? Of course it is. Indeed, it is the only question, and it requires an answer.
When dealing in a perfunctory and cursory vein with this aspect of the Report the right hon. Gentleman remarked that the number of Service personnel abroad was about half of the total number, and he indicated that there were a certain number of married quarters in Aden, in Cyprus and elsewhere. I interjected to suggest that we should not bother about cost accounting—although it is important—and that the cost was what mattered. There is no indication from the Committee of what the cost is likely to be. There could not be. The Committee had not the information. Neither can the Department furnish details to enable us to come to a conclusion about this.
Let us suppose that we had no overseas bases. Suppose we abandoned the bases at Aden, Cyprus, El Adem and Hong Kong—particularly Hong Kong—and brought all the Service personnel home. We should, of course, have to accommodate them. We should have to provide married quarters and that would cost a great deal of money—perhaps not as much as it would cost overseas, but a great deal of money would still be required. So let us not suppose that by providing quarters overseas for a certain proportion of our personnel we are increasing enormously—I use that word advisedly—the cost of the provision of housing for married personnel. A great deal requires to be done in the United Kingdom in respect of married quarters for Service personnel. Who would deny that?
I do not know whether there has ever been a Select Committee on Estimates which has inquired into the problem in the United Kingdom. By the way—this is almost a digression also—there has been a great deal of talk about waste

in the Services. On the subject of waste, perhaps a Select Committee might be appointed—the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) is an authority on this subject and occupies a responsible position in this context—to probe and investigate into the number of storehouses in the possession of the Army, the Air Force and the Admiralty, the amount of land at their disposal and the amount of equipment left over from the last war.

Sir G. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that all these questions have been inquired into in recent years by Estimates Committees and that the Reports are available. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that all that an Estimates Committee can do is provide ammunition for hon. Members to use in debates, and they can ask questions. We have inquired into all the questions and the facts are there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) himself remarked that he thought that what he was saying might be a digression. I think that it is, and that we must get back to the Report.

Mr. Shinwell: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, very great respect, there has been a great deal of discussion about the waste involved. Indeed it is contained in the Report of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. We cannot discuss what other committees are to inquire into.

Mr. Shinwell: My suggestion was that there might be a committee to undertake that task, but the hon. Member for Farnham has pointed out that these investigations have already taken place. My question is, what has happened about it? It is very little indeed. That is our problem. That is why I say that our procedure this afternoon—I admit that it is the customary procedure—is outmoded. When the Select Committee has a Report it ought to be presented first to the House and then referred to a committee which would examine and probe and question Ministers in order to ascertain what was to be done. In other words, the task should be completed.
If the hon. Member for Farnham is content merely to ask questions—to which he gets unsatisfactory and sometimes very silly answers—let him be so content. I propose to remain discontented. I have had a long experience as a Member of this House—perhaps longer than anyone present at this time. I never found it possible to obtain all the information one desired to obtain merely by asking questions. I have myself been a Minister and so I know the kind of answers which are given. If the job is to be done, let us do it satisfactorily. What I say is by no means intended to be offensive to the Select Committee, far from it. As I have said, the Committee has done this job satisfactorily under very severe limitations. We have to complete the job.
I come now to the question of what should be done. I wish to put it as plainly to hon. Members as I can. We must increase our defence expenditure because of the need for more housing for married personnel, and provide more amenities, as has been rightly demanded by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). I know about these things. I tried to do a great deal myself in this direction when I had the opportunity. Some of the things I was able to carry out, others were impossible for financial and other reasons. Our expenditure is already nearly £2,000 million, and I venture to prophesy that no matter what Government come to power in October or November of this year the next Defence Estimates will not show any reduction, for obvious reasons. First, there is the legacy from the old Government which is bad enough, and, secondly, there are all the obligations that trouble us and which have been referred to.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr. Healey) that when we accept obligations we have to carry them out. We have a remarkable capacity—at any rate we have displayed a remarkable capacity since the end of the last war—for undertaking all kinds of obligations which we are quite unable satisfactorily to fulfil; or at any rate, if we are able to do so, it is only at great cost and by imposing a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country.

No one would deny that. We have accepted obligations in respect of mandated territories, and handouts from the United Nations and the old League of Nations—protectorates and all the rest of it in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. We are ready to take on anything without regard to the consequences. That is why we have bases everywhere.
Will anyone tell me why we need to remain in Hong Kong? The Chinese People's Republic, if it suited their purpose—which it does not for economic and other reasons—could drive us out. Those with less power and military strength than the Chinese could drive us out of other places. We face a terrific task. When reference is made to the prowess of our soldiers, airmen and sailors I wholeheartedly agree with every word. I emphasise what has been said. They do a fine job. Look at what is happening in the Yemen. They are doing a terrific job. They deserve every tribute which can be given to them.

Sir Richard Glyn: On a minor point, but one of some importance, our troops are not engaged in the Yemen; they are engaged in Aden. It makes a difference.

Mr. Shinwell: I accept the correction by the hon. Member, who has more knowledge of this subject than I have, but I meant that area. Do not let us be too partisan on a minor point.
Of course these men deserve our tribute, but there are the obligations to consider, more accommodation and more amenities, more of this and that. Some hon. Members from time to time complain that our Forces have not adequate equipment. I have heard demands from this side of the House for better equipment for our Forces and allegations about inadequacy of equipment. I do not know; I do not make charges of that kind because I do not know. I have to have the facts before me before I make comments. But this will all cost more. Either we have increased costs or we have to abandon some of the bases and to depart from some of the obligations we have taken on. That is not a matter that we can decide. It can be decided only in the context of our foreign policy and the context of our alliances with the United States, the Western Alliance


and Europe, and now in Aden and elsewhere.
We remain in Cyprus for strategic reasons, although it never occurred to me when I was associated with the War Office and the Ministry of Defence that there was a strategic value there. I never heard a general or an air vice-marshal who said that it was for strategic reasons. We have to pay through the nose for it, with all the trouble we are having at present and the weakness displayed by the United Nations. I repeat as plainly as I can that either we abandon our bases and fail to fulfil our obligations or there will be an increase in defence expenditure. Otherwise we shall not provide the accommodation for married personnel which the Committee desires.
I agree with the Committee. Short tours might be a remedy, but that does not work out very well. If men are sent to a remote part thousands of miles away and have to be trained and become accustomed to the area in which they are likely to be operating, clearly we cannot have a shuttle service all the time.
I say only one further word, and I say it particularly to the Secretary of State for Defence. He has taken on a very big job. He spoke about centralisation. I was a little amused when he spoke about centralisation in respect of the repair and maintenance of mechanically-propelled vehicles. In 1929, which is a long time ago, I was Financial Secertary to the War Office. I was asked to undertake the task of conducting an investigation into the cost of repair and maintenance of mechanically-propelled vehicles. I was asked to do that by the late George Milne, then Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I am sorry but I do not remember the number of the Command Paper, but it must be in the archives. If the Secretary of State looks it up he will find the conclusions arrived at.
I discovered what he has now discovered but it was a long time ago. It was that we failed to get a man at the head of the Royal Army Service Corps to agree with a man at the head of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. In one depot we would find any amount of accommodation, while another was chock-a-block with vehicles. If we suggested to the man in charge of the depôt

which was chock-a-block with vehicles that some should be transferred to the other depôt, he would say, "No, what we want is expansion" and he would produce with enthusiasm blueprints for expansion.
The right hon. Gentleman still has a very big job. We have been discussing it for many years, just as we have been discussing standardisation, yet we are as far away from standardisation in respect of equipment and services as they were many years ago. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the interests of our economy, not that I wish him well politically. I would not go so far as that, but I hope that he does the job so long as he is there in order that our economy shall be properly fashioned and that we can reduce our expenditure and produce something adequate and efficient.
In the next few months we shall be watching that. We shall do so as long as we are allowed to remain here, and that depends on the Prime Minister. Whoever becomes Secretary of State for Defence we shall do the same in the interests of economy and efficiency. I repeat what I have said more than once, but I cannot help being repetitive. When the Select Committee comes before the House with a Report of this kind—a very valuable Report, as is admitted—we have to concern ourselves with what is to be done about its implementation. The implementation does not depend on hon. Members on this side or that side of the House but on the Government.

6.16 p.m.

Captain John Litchfield: I shall refer a little later to some of the points which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) described as the "brass tacks" of this Report, but I want to go back to some of the things to which the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) referred—particularly his suggestion, which I know is favoured by some of his hon. Friends, that this House should set up expert specialist committees to deal with some of these matters of defence.
This subject has been discussed before in this House. I know there is more than one view about it. It is an attractive idea in theory, but I am not sure that it would work out quite so well


in practice. I should have considerable doubts about it. I am not sure, for instance, whether it would offend in its working against the principle of Ministerial responsibility to which we all attach great importance. From a more practical aspect I think that it might be found difficult for those hon. Members—not a great number—who take a particular interest in these affairs to attend both upstairs and downstairs to debate these matters.

Mr. Bellenger: I take the point that the hon. and gallant Member has made, but he must remember that it does not seem to affect Ministers in the United States of America, in Germany and other democratic countries in which they have that system.

Captain Litchfield: I quite agree, but the right hon. Member knows as well as I do that the Ministers in the United States are not Members of Congress, nor are they elected representatives. In a sense, they are a staff of the Executive.
However that may be, there is a point which might be mentioned in passing about the Estimates Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) will not mind my mentioning. I have already discussed it with him. I sometimes wonder whether in the Estimates Committee we make the best possible use of individual experience of the members of the Committee. I can only give my own experience since I have been a member of the Estimates Committee. My subcommittee has investigated the cotton industry, Downing Street, the Board of Trade development districts, and the Department of Technical Co-operation. These investigations which have been at times of fascinating interest have been for me of the highest educational value, but I have sometimes wondered what experience of my own I have been able to contribute to some of these inquiries. In the Estimates Committee in these rather technical investigations we might perhaps be a little more selective.

Sir E. Errington: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that there is considerable value in having non-technical people considering technical

evidence that has come before them? Is not that the basis on which we operate?

Captain Litchfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. What I am saying is that it seems rather a pity if when individual members of the Estimates Committee happen to possess some experience which might conceivably be of some value, that experience is not always used.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to integration both in the commands and in the new Ministry. I very much agree with everything that he said about it. I know that everything possible is being done and that the points brought out in the Report will be most carefully attended to by him. But some of the things that the right hon. Members for Bassetlaw and Easington said go a good deal beyond what one might call integration in the sense of integration within the Ministry. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggested that there should be closer contact between the Defence Department and the Foreign Office. I am sure we all agree very much with that, but there has been very close contact indeed at the staff level and higher up, at the Defence Committee level, for a very long time, and I do not think there is anything to criticise there.
What we are a little worried about in looking at the past and perhaps also at the future is the viability of the bases abroad and the rather costly reappraisals which have had to be made in the past and which have resulted in some of the bases having to be discarded almost before they were in use. That is not a defence decision. I very much doubt whether it is a Foreign Office decision. It is a very high political decision. It springs from policy statements as important as the "Wind of Change" speech and many other great decisions of that kind in which perhaps our whole national policy has altered course a little. So I do not feel that there is any criticism here as far as defence is concerned. I do not think that closer contacts would make much difference there.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) stated that there is no military base overseas which is vital to the


United Kingdom's survival. That may be true in a strict sense, but I thought that he treated rather lightly the question of the United Kingdom's interests, responsibilities and investments in some parts of the world. I am sure that he would be very sorry indeed to see us lose our position—and when I say "our position", I do not mean the allied position. I refer to the United Kingdom's interests and investments in, for example, Malaysia. If we are not to lose these interests, if our influence there is not to be eclipsed and if our power to protect those interests is not to be destroyed, we must have forces and a base somewhere in the area from which to operate.
I do not want to drag any partisan thoughts into the discussion. As the right hon. Member for Easington said, it has been on a very high and impartial level. However, when the right hon. Gentleman thinks about bases and the possibility that we may have to change our ideas again one day, he should not forget that there is a very important base in the Indian Ocean at Simonstown, and not loosely throw out comments—which I do not think he himself does—which might make our position there and our ability to use that base in the future more difficult than it already is. The base may become more important to us one day.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East had some interesting things to say on the question of accompanied and unaccompanied service overseas. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem to be sure about, but I feel that we cannot think very sensibly about it unless we are in a position to know what the financial implications would be of totally abandoning the existing policy of accompanied service overseas and going in for an unaccompanied service policy. I am not saying that it would be a good thing—I do not know; we have not the information to judge—but it would be an interesting investigation to see on a long view—not an immediate view—whether or not it would be more economical or less to do away with accompanied service altogether eventually, at any rate as far as operational units are concerned.
I agree with the hon. Member that the whole question of families is of first-

class importance to morale in the Services. We all accept that the most tender spot in any Service man is the well-being of his family. I do not think we could run unaccompanied service on anything much longer than a 12 months' basis. We have had an example in the last weekend of one of the problems which can arise in accompanied service. We have had the King's Own Scottish Borderers, who have recently returned from two years' accompanied service in Aden, sent off again to fulfil an absolute requirement out there at a few hours' notice.
I entirely applaud and support my right hon. Friend's decision to send reinforcements to Aden. It is absolutely essential at the present time. I will not go into the question of whether it might be kinder to take troops from Germany or not. But in this instance we have had a very serious disruption of family life. We must feel great sympathy for the families whose lives have suddenly, at a few hours' notice, been disrupted. I would, in passing, say that I hope that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully into the welfare of the families which have been left at Shorncliffe. I listened to a short statement in the B.B.C. news bulletin at 8 a.m. on Monday which implied that considerable difficulty was arising for the wives and children who had been left at such very short notice. I hope that the Government will step in to look after their interests and that no financial considerations will stand in the way of their getting a very fair deal. After all, their men have been called to go to a most unpleasant part of the world at this time of the year and will take part in some very tough operations. We owe it to them to look after their families left in this country.
I should like for a moment to say something about the whole question of overseas bases, which must be one of the most costly investments this country has even indulged in overseas—necessary but costly. As my right hon. Friend said, almost everywhere in the world these bases are under pressure, and in three cases—certainly in two cases—they are under direct military pressure.
I do not think it is very fair to commit our Forces to military operations in


defence of these bases with one hand tied behind their back. In my opinion, our present military posture in Borneo—I am not so sure about Aden, but I suspect there, too—simply cannot be maintained indefinitely with safety or dignity, unless, after going through all the political motions which may be necessary to clear our yardarm with the United Nations and our allies, we give authority for our Forces to strike back at the sources of aggression.
The very last thing that anyone in his right mind inside or outside the House—in this country, at any rate—would want to do would be to get involved in an avoidable war or in avoidable military operations, large or small. But we are already involved in war, or at any rate highly warlike operations, in Borneo and in Aden, and in something which, if it is not war, is certainly not peace, in Cyprus. Our resources, as I am certain my right hon. Friend would be the first to agree, are becoming stretched. We are committing our Forces, or so it seems to me, in operations under such limiting conditions from the military point of view that their task is made, if not impossible, at least very difficult. There will not be any end to it, unless we adopt a more active rôle.
If we are to maintain these bases under direct military pressure, we must get a little more tough with our opponents. My right hon. Friend himself would probably welcome that. I realise that it is a very great responsibility to commit troops to offensive military operations, but I do not see how we can go on in this purely defensive posture very much longer.
I want to return to what the right hon. Member for Easington referred to as the "brass tacks" of the Report. It is an admirable Report. I was not a member of the sub-committee which wrote it, so I can take no credit for it. It is clear, instructive and frank, but there are one or two disturbing disclosures in it. I shall not labour them. Those of us who have read the Report know what I am referring to.
I do not think that paragraphs 107–111, on the subject of air conditioning in Aden, make very good reading. They are enlightening paragraphs. The ways of Whitehall, where central heating is

switched on and off according to the calendar and irrespective of the weather, have been transplanted overseas into the South Arabian peninsula and elsewhere. A more sensible attitude should be taken to this problem. A little more discretion should be allowed to more junior people to decide whether they require air conditioning. I invite the attention of the House particularly to the evidence of the oil companies, which, after all, have been in business out in these unpleasantly hot parts of the world for a very long time. They state definitely that they have found that more extended use of air conditioning is beneficial to efficiency.
It was stated in evidence by the representative of one or other of the Services that the Services must consider the interests of the taxpayer. That is true, but that is a pretty good one after what has been spent in some other ways! The Services surely ought not to consider the interests of the taxpayer at the expense of the welfare, health and efficiency of our men. After all, the oil companies have an even stricter body to be responsible to—their shareholders.
Then there is the question of the reception arrangements in Cyprus. I have heard some references to this on the naval side outside the House. Members of Parliament who visit the Services are sometimes recipients of a good deal of drip from time to time if there is any going. We are all, perhaps, rather gullible to anyone with a chip on his shoulder.
However, the Report on the subject of the reception arrangements in Cyprus must be accepted. It is a serious statement. I hope that my right hon. Friends concerned with this aspect will give personal attention to it. I am surprised that this matter is not referred to in the Departmental observations on the Tenth Report. It is a most serious allegation. It is forthrightly written, and it merits attention.
There are one or two other references to weaknesses on the welfare side. It is rather difficult here in London to judge what weight to give to them, but I do not doubt that there have been some failures. There are strong and serious allegations contained in the Report which I hope my hon. Friend will ensure are cleared up.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes and accepts the Report. I have served in Government Departments in White hall and I know the resistances which arise on the professional and the Civil Service side whenever there are any Parliamentary searchlights playing around on their fields of responsibility. I congratulate him, as I think we all do, on his decision to carry out a thorough reorganisation of the costing system, which, when it is brought about, as I hope it will be as soon as possible, will be of the greatest possible assistance to all Members who are interested in these things. It will help us in forming our judgments. It may prevent too hasty judgments, and it will give the House something firm on which to base our thought. In the long run I believe it will also lead to substantial economies.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I should very much like to follow the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield), but I am afraid that if I did so we should be entering into high controversy on strategy, which was the very issue that the members of the Estimates Committee tried very much to avoid. The hon. and gallant Gentleman completely misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). My hon. Friend was dealing with an issue not based on policy but on economics, as to whether we can justify the maintenance of very expensive bases in different parts of the world in view of the country's economics.
Can we justify spending £125 million, presumably protecting tin and rubber in Malaysia, when our military expenditure is more than the totality of all our trade in the whole area? Can we justify an expenditure of £l25 million on a military base in Aden when we have to put that cost to the taxpayer on the price of Middle Eastern oil? These were the practical issues my hon. Friend was raising.
Our world-wide commitments and our desire, like other democratic countries, to help to keep the peace of the world and maintain law and order, along with keeping our promises to the United Nations, form only a part of the story. The other part is whether this nation can maintain a system of defence which developed with the British Empire when

the British Empire has been transformed into the Commonwealth. I am afraid that many people who should know better still believe that we can maintain this great world-wide structure, although my hon. Friends and I keep telling them that to do so is bleeding the nation white.
I will not dwell on that aspect because I wish to concentrate on the contents of the Report. I enjoyed being a member of the Sub-Committee and very much respect our Chairman, the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who was an extremely energetic and wise Chairman. We were fortunate in having the active co-operation of the Ministry of Defence and the services of two able officers of that Ministry, who travelled with us. We were exceptionally fortunate in having with us two Clerks of the House. They worked unremittingly, often into the early hours, to produce daily reports so that the facts we gathered could be transmitted to our minutes immediately we returned to Parliament.
The Sub-Committee was made up of hon. Members of both sides of the House. Two of my hon. Friends who were on the Committee and I are known to be provocative, nosey and to have strong views about defence. I am not saying that such views were expressed in our work in the Committee. We all accepted the fact that our business was to collect information, it being the business of the, Government and Opposition to discuss these matters of policy, in a positive way or otherwise, in Parliament.
Reference has been made to the composition of the Sub-Committee. It is worth remembering that members of the Estimates Committee are often bogged down for months when dealing with issues like roads, bridges and agriculture. Such subjects often bore us to death. We were, therefore, exceptionally fortunate that a subject so full of life and human interest was allocated to us and that we were able to study it in various parts of the world. Whereas members of the Estimates Committee work, say, two or three hours a week when investigating a subject, we worked six hours and more a day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to the necessity for a reform


in the whole procedure of collecting information for Parliament and the taxpayer on the subject of massive Government expenditure overseas. It is not enough for Committees of this House to be fed with information by the Ministries, particularly when criticism is often bound to be levelled at those Ministries. As my hon. Friend suggested, it is like biting the hand that feeds one. It is obviously right that when hon. Members examine huge Government expenditure abroad they should have clerical assistance to do their work effectively. We had to take notes and transfer them in our Committee proceedings upstairs. We had to put the information together from our notes so that the evidence we received abroad could be put on the record. This is not an efficient way of collecting information and this is obviously a suitable subject for the Select Committee to consider, particularly since it is at present considering the question of procedure.
It should be remembered that our Sub-Committee was inquiring into the expenditure of one-quarter of the total defence budget of this country. We were dealing with a mountain of wealth—expenditure amounting to £500 million, or one-sixteenth of the total Government expenditure of the nation. That being so, it should not be left to this haphazard, inefficient way of collecting information. We were compelled to use the existing methods because the War Lords—I call them "War Lords" and hon. Members will see the way my mind is working—I mean, of course, the Law Officers of the Crown, suggested that inquiries should be made in this country and in the House and not overseas. I do not know whether that matter has been debated or even reported, although it should be inquired into.
Not all the members of the Sub-Committee were military men, although three of our colleagues were experienced Service men, having been regular officers. It should be remembered that we were not considering strategy but accountability, finance, social, human and building problems Common problems like these can be considered by all hon. Members, remembering that we acquire a general knowledge and understanding of these affairs through our day-to-day activities in our constituencies. I do not

feel that members of the Sub-Committee were not competent to carry out the task allocated to them.
It is important that military expenditure right through the chain should be examined. It is appalling, for example, to consider that although the Cabinet decided to cancel the building of an underground plant, that decision did not reach the builders or the local people until 18 months after it was made, during which time £300,000 of the taxpayers' money had been thrown down the drain. Think of what could have been done with that money for, say, the provision of Service accommodation.
Consider, also, the admiral's house. About £46,000 was spent on building a round house, a four-bedroomed one. I understand that £6,000 was spent on furniture alone. The house was built around a cannon because, I understand, a way could not be devised of getting the cannon down a hill. Incidentally, about a century ago a group of British sailors lugged that very cannon up that very hill. However, all our modern methods of lifting machinery did not enable us to get the cannon down the hill. As a result, the house was built around the cannon.

Captain Litchfield: Can the hon. Member say—I am not sure of my facts from the Report—whether it would have been possible to build a suitable house for the admiral more cheaply at a place that had not already got foundations such as this gun site provided for the house? And does he not agree that the apparently very high cost of the furniture was due to the fact that as the foundations of the house had to be round, and the house was round, the furniture had to be rounded?

Mr. Edwards: It sounds worse than ever. This was an expenditure of £46,000 on a four-bedroomed house, and that is a great deal of money by any standards or in any part of the world.
Then we had the appalling situation in Kenya where, during the last five years before independence, we spent £5½ million—over £1 million a year—on a beautiful garden estate for the Forces at Gilgil. We built a school and a N.A.A.F.I. at a cost of £100,000. The school had a beautiful ornate wall. Who passed the plans, I do not know, but


in that wall were holes just big enough for a child to put its head in. The headmaster told me that the wall was a constant source of trouble because children were shoving their heads in all the time. It was not surely a family man who designed that wall, but the design was passed here in London. Then the whole estate was to be handed over to the Kenya Government without any kind of compensation being paid.
The question of security of tenure is important, but the Minister of Defence refused to deal with it. Libya is a typical case. We spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds there, and a good deal of it in the last few years, though everybody knew two years ago that our tenure would be very short. We have to take into consideration the whole sweep of Arab nationalism right through North Africa and the Middle East, and it is stupid to plan as though we are to stay in those countries for another 30 years. With this massive expenditure, the whole question of how long we will stay in a base should be considered.
With just one or two outstanding exceptions, wherever we travelled we found British bases in the turmoil of industrial disputes. Many of those disputes should never have taken place. They sprang up from simple trade union issues that could have been settled on the spot, but the man on the spot had not the power to settle them. Simple issues had not been settled after 18 months of meetings—and all because the man on the spot had to wait for instructions from Whitehall. In this modern world, this remote control just will not do. We cannot organise collective bargaining right across the world from the Admiralty, the Defence Ministry or the Royal Air Force in London. We have officers on the spot who are skilled in these labour problems, and we must give them powers to take some initiative and some power to make decisions.
A dispute at a British base very soon becomes a political matter. It turns the population sour. The people become anti-British and there develops a political question when really what is at stake is ½d. an hour in wages, a change in a shift rate or an extra statutory holiday on full pay based on the religion of the country. Those are

simple issues that the man on the spot could settle, yet we get a whole dockyard closed down, or a whole base in turmoil, with pickets, with political con-fleet and with people working up a great anti-British fervour.
I hope that our Report and this debate will result in great savings to the taxpayers. Above all, I hope that there will be some change in the whole system of collective bargaining of the kind I have mentioned.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I join with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) in his tribute to the Chairman of our Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) was a stern taskmaster—or, perhaps, a genial slave driver. He was always a wise counsellor and friend, and set a high standard of hard work that we tried to emulate. I, too, am grateful for the services rendered by the Clerks of the Committee and the officials of the Ministry.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) refer to these bases as this country's contribution to peace and security. It is a very expensive contribution. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that, excluding weapons, stores and supplies, the total cost is £334 million a year. What is not so generally recognised is that this is a contribution not only to the peace of the world but to the economies of the countries where the bases are. We are sometimes criticised for not paying enough of our national income to the under-developed countries, but our bases are largely situated in such countries and a very great deal of the money is spent for the benefit of their economy. There is no question of that.
Reference has been made to the insecurity of bases and it is a matter of great regret that, if they are, as they should be, regarded as bases for the furtherance of peace and stability, they do not get more support from our friends in the United Nations and from our friends and allies in the world in general; and that, when those bases are threatened, we are not supported more effectively by our friends in rebutting and combating those threats. In these


overseas commitments, we bear a voluntary burden incomparably greater than that of any country other than the United States of America.
The Committee recognised in its Report the difficulty of insecurity of tenure and its criticisms were restrained accordingly. However, one or two criticisms remained. Whilst recognising that plans might easily be frustrated by events for which the British Government were not responsible, there were still criticisms about officers' quarters being built at great expense in Malta, and about certain expenditure in Kenya.
I should like to touch on one or two matters which I do not think have been specifically referred to by other hon. Members so far. One of these is the building projects that we saw. Much of the buildings was prefabricated. I thought that it was a very expensive type of prefabrication and perhaps not altogether suited to the conditions. I recognise that prefabrication is necessary if one is constructing a base quickly. There was an element of that with regard to El Adem and Cyprus, but there is less excuse for repeating the experiment when things have settled down and the same sense of urgency does not prevail.
It was disconcerting to find a prefabricated building in Cyprus which had been inflated in cost by the rigid conditions insisted upon in the building. It was required to be free from attack by termites, when termites do not exist in Cyprus. It was to be proof against gales, which are unknown in Cyprus. The answer was that these prefabricated buildings are essentially chosen because they have to be transferred if we have the misfortune of having to abandon a base. We found from inquiries, however, that it would cost as much to transport and rebuild them elsewhere as to obtain entirely new buildings from the United Kingdom. That argument therefore falls to the ground.
Have we paid attention to the possibility of building with local labour and local materials, or with imported materials and local labour? I have had experience of this in tropical Africa where it was the custom to import cement to make breeze blocks and to build with local labour on the spot.

The buildings were very good. Tobruk is a few miles from El Adem. It is not a shanty town, though it may be a shabby town. The buildings are constructed of solid materials and if those can be built, as obviously they were, by local labour with imported materials, surely that can be done wherever buildings are erected for our Forces.
The need to provide air conditioning has been emphasised in the debate. In the matter of more accommodation for married quarters I depart from speakers on the question of air conditioning only on one point. I endured many years in the most trying tropical conditions without air conditioning, but I am the first to recognise that it is a great aid to efficiency, though not universally. One does not need it in every living room. One needs it in the bedroom and in the office where one works, but with that slight modification I accept that there should be an extension of air conditioning in the interests of efficiency.
All building, however, is very expensive, and if we are to embark on building, whether by importing prefabricated buildings or by building locally, the bill for married quarters, if the accommodation is to be adequate, will be colossal. This is why I support those hon. Members who have recommended that some study should be made of the possibility of unaccompanied tours. I know that it has been suggested that the tour might be one of only 12 months. I think that we can go further than that, especially in the area in which we were interested. It is not the Far East but the Mediterranean. Could there not be more frequent leaves if men leave their families at home?
The arithmetic of all this is rather startling. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that roughly half our men are abroad, which means about 85,000. Pay and allowances for personnel amounted to £218 million, which is £2,500 per head. On the same reckoning, overseas works, including buildings and presumably married quarters, cost about £450 per head. Overseas movements, it is true not all connected with troops and their dependants going to and from this country, accounted for £300 per head. This gives a total of £3,250 per head per annum for every man sent overseas.
This is why it is so important that we should study this question of unaccompanied tours. It is a little incongruous to go to some of these places and find a sort of Butlin's holiday camp with swimming pools, cinemas and clubs. It is not that I think that we should give the troops anything less. It is essential that we should give them these, but my argument is that the need for supplying them might be diminished. Fewer people should take their families out so that the need for these expensive amenities might be removed. I hope that this matter will not be allowed to drop. Even the question of offering a bonus to a man at the end of his tour, or at the end of his period of service, if he is unaccompanied might be considered.
The question of building married quarters in this country in that event becomes even more urgent. I thoroughly applaud efforts to provide those quarters here. It may be said to be a deterrent to recruiting to leave the families behind, though strangely enough naval men have the company of their families to a far less degree than do members of the other two Services and yet recruiting to the Navy is much easier. This makes one wonder whether all the implications of the problem have been fully considered.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Could the hon. Member help me on one point? I am surprised that the Estimates Committee said nothing about it. The hon. Member talked about the equipment of camps. It seemed to me to give an unwarranted sense of continuity when I saw that two churches, at a cost I should have thought of about £100,000, were being built at the Commonwealth Brigade Camp in Malaya. Has the hon. Member any opinions about that?

Mr. Pannell: I did not see that camp, but there was a striking example of a church in Kenya which I think received criticism from the Committee. The same has applied to certain expenditure on schools, which however might have greater utilitarian value than an expensive church building.
As for civilian employment, the question arose in Cyprus whether we were taking full advantage of the opportunities that were present. A comparison

was made between the Royal Air Force and the Army. The Royal Air Force had a Service personnel of 7,400 and a civilian personnel of 2,300. The Army had 4,300 Service men and 6,000 civilians. In other words, the proportion of civilians was 25 per cent. in the Royal Air Force and 60 per cent. in the Army. The answer we were given was that there were difficulties in finding qualified men, that the conditions were rather different in the R.A.F. and that there was the question of security. There has been and there is a continuing opportunity to test whether security has been endangered in these rather turbulent days in Cyprus. If, as a result, the argument that security is an important point is disposed of, the Secretary of State for Defence, acting for the Royal Air Force, might be able to rethink the problem of employing civilians in that Service.
I enjoyed the perhaps undeserved privilege of being a member of the Committee. I hope that we have produced a Report of value which will result in some service to the taxpayer.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne: I was not a member of the Committee and I am in no position to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) in some of the detailed points which he raised, although I listened to his speech with the greatest interest. I wish to return to a point raised in a number of speeches, namely, the question of costing. I was particularly glad that the Secretary of State said that this whole matter was to be reviewed and that in future it would become possible to base a rational defence policy on knowing what we spent and knowing whether it was worth spending the sums involved. I thought that on this issue the Report of the Committee was, if anything, rather mild. After saying that it could not give the expense attributable to a particular base because it was said that, after all, bases were maintained for the operation of our forces and that redeployment was undertaken for strategic reasons, not on financial grounds, the Committee said:
Your Committee do not altogether accept this argument. While strategic considerations must be paramount, the Defence Budget as a whole is limited, and its size is determined not


only by the needs of the armed Services but also by what the national economy can afford".
I think that that was putting it very mildly indeed.
I wish to look at the matter in a slightly different way and examine our defence expenditure with particular reference to the relevance which particular bases have to our balance of payments. How far can we, or should we, break down the costs in order to determine how far bases are an avoidable drain on our balance of payments which, of course, affects the country's welfare as a whole?
I take the example of the Middle East an area in regard to which, perhaps, there is particular need at this time for a dispassionate appraisal, now that certain high emotions have been raised. It is very difficult to arrive at any estimate of what our commitment in the Middle East costs us. Looking at the total picture of costs and the balance of payments, one finds in the 1963 White Paper on the National Income and Balance of Payments that the total of military expenditure having relevance to the balance of payments was £247 million. It is a debit item of £247 million in total. This has not been broken down into sterling and non-sterling to give an indication of what the commitments in the Far East and Middle East might be. However, in the 1961 figures there was a breakdown of the total of £227 million lost on the balance of payments for foreign commitments, and about £137 million was sterling and about £90 million was non-sterling. One can probably deduce from this that the approximate figure of sterling payments out of the £247 million debit in 1963 was about £150 million.
From the 10th Report one finds that the total figures are rather larger. In 1962–63, the total was £334 million and for 1963–64 it was about £20 million more. If one applies this to the current situation, it is reasonable to assume that the balance of payments deficit attributable to military expenditure overseas is something like £170 million.
When we try to go further to see how far we can attribute any part of this to the bases at, say, Aden and the Middle East, we find that we do not

know. We have no rational basis for judging the effect of the Middle East base in what it gains and what it costs us. The appalling fact is that not only do we not know how much money we spend but, on the other side of the equation, we do not know what we spend it for.
It is sometimes suggested that the purpose of the bases in the Middle East is part of the general strategy against Communism. But, of course, the presence of military forces in that part of the world is more likely to lead to the Arabs turning more closely to the Soviet bloc rather than to the prevention of the spread of Communism. It has been suggested—I do not want to go into detail, and I have discussed this on another occasion in the defence debate—that the Middle East base is a vital staging post. For the Far East, there is an alternative route, the west-about route via Canada.
The other main reason for the presence of our Forces in the Middle East is, of course, oil. Here we find that not only do we not know how much money we spend to protect our oil interests but we do not know the other side of the equation we do not know how much money is brought in by our oil. Here is material for precisely the sort of exercise which I hope that our foreign policy planners and our defence planners will undertake.
From the 1963 White Paper, one derives no assistance at all. The only item referable to income from oil in the balance of payments is the item entitled "Other" under the subhead "Interest, Profits and Dividends". This is not exactly helpful. The total is £324 million, but we have no idea how it is to be broken up. A study of this was done in 1960, with some valuable result, and this suggests that out of the figure of £330 million at that time listed under "Other", about £144 million was, perhaps, attributable to oil revenues. But this "Other" item appears also on the debit side of the account, and one has also to look at the movement of capital.
If one refers again to the 1963 White Paper, one finds that there is a loss of about £97 million on capital account currency investment overseas which includes oil company investment and insurance company investment. So we have


no idea at all what the gain is to our balance of payments from the oil interest which we are supposed to be protecting by our military expenditure in the Middle East. We cannot do either side of the sum, and there is no rational basis for arriving at a realistic assessment of what the expenditure is really worth. It is also said that the presence of our Forces in the area is a very important factor because of the effect there might be on our general economic position if, say, the sterling balances of the Middle East countries were withdrawn. However, this also is a quite unsatisfactory point. We know from the last Bank of England Bulletin, for December, 1963, that the sterling balances of the Middle East countries, that is, the Gulf States, Jordan and Libya, amount to £423 million. In an article in the Financial Times today the estimate for Kuwait is about £300 million.
Is this part of the justification for the presence of our Forces in the Middle East? If it is, it is a rather expensive item, about £50 million to preserve a deposit of about £300 million. Quite apart from anything else, it is extremely doubtful whether, in fact, the withdrawal of military protection would lead to the withdrawal of sterling balances which not only get a high rate of interest and can be easily withdrawn but are banked in a country where there is a tradition of non-political banking as opposed to other possible places for the deposit of money where the situation might be rather different.
In trying to make a realistic appraisal of the expenditure we find that we do not know what is actually spent and we do not know what the receipts are, either. The whole thing is entirely surrounded by myth. It is part of the conventional wisdom of our day to say that our Middle East commitments are essential for the purpose of safeguarding British interests in oil, but we do not know how much we spend and or how much we gain. Nor, for that matter, is sufficient attention devoted to the connection between the sums we spend and the receipts we get. We do not consider sufficiently the question whether or not these receipts would cease to come to us if the expenditure were cut down.
Several questions arise here. Undoubtedly, the presence of our Forces in

these bases is to some extent a positive danger. They are an irritant. It is not likely that the oil producing companies would cease to supply oil, but, on the other hand, it is rather less unlikely that, at a period of general excitement in the Middle East, countries through which the oil pipelines passed might interfere with the oil supplies, as happened at the time of Suez. Second, it is rather doubtful whether, in view of the cost structure of the oil industry and its marketing arrangements, it would pay any of the countries concerned to cut off oil supplies to this country or expropriate the oil companies, having regard to the difficulty of marketing the oil and the doubt about whether they would, in fact, gain anything at all in the way of revenue.
I see the, hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) in his place. I read the article that he wrote in the Daily Mail today, and I agree to a large extent with what he wrote. If one looks at the military protection supposed to be given and the results it is supposed to produce, what do we find? In Iraq, when we had troops there, the oil flowed, and when we ceased to have Forces there the oil continued to flow. When Nuri-Es-Said was in charge the oil flowed and so did it when Kassim was in charge, and with the present régime. The whole connection between military expenditure and the flow of oil and the receipts from oil which we are supposed to be safeguarding has not been proved.
I hope that the next Government will look very hard at these facts and do some concrete economic sums. At the moment, the position is that the economists say: "So far as our balance of payments are concerned our military expenditure is a pain in the neck; the military expenditure is something which is a grave embarrassment, but, of course, strategic considerations may make it necessary." Often when we approach military men and ask what they think about our presence in the Middle East, they say: "It may be an awkward position for us to be in the Middle East and it raises all sorts of awkward commitments, which we do not necessarily like, but it is necessary for economic interests to safeguard the oil."
We have the economists using bogus strategic arguments and the strategists using bogus economic arguments. This


may not be entirely so, but the position has never been fully studied or fully gone into. My own hunch is that if this inquiry is made we may well find that we spend far more than we can afford aiming to protect benefits which have been vastly exaggerated, and that we are seeking to do it by means ill-designed to achieve that end.

7.22 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I thought that when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) was speaking that, although the voice was the voice of Lincoln, the words were the words of Lancaster. The article which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) has in the Daily Mail today has been re-echoed by the hon. Member, and I would only say that I am sorry to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster associating himself with an attitude of mind which is all too typical of the party opposite but which used not to be typical of our party on this side of the House.
I approach this Report of the Select Committee with one absolute certainty in my mind, that we are spending not too much but too little on the defence of this country. Wherever one goes, one knows perfectly well that the Forces having to do the job have not everything they want, and they never will get it as long as we limit our expenditure to 7 per cent. of the gross national product. If the defence of this country is not worth ensuring for 10 per cent. of its gross national product, I do not know what it is worth. That is my preconceived approach to this Report.
It is very easy for hon. Members, whether members of the Select Committee on Estimates or of any other committee, to spend a few days in an area and to come away with certain obvious ideas which perhaps have been put into their minds by certain people who feel strongly on this, that or the other. In doing this, with the best will in the world and the highest motives, they come back with an impression which cannot possibly be as accurate as it must be if we are to make sense of all these matters.
Every time I have been posted overseas, I reckon that it takes at least three months before one begins to get some

grip on the situation locally. However desirable it is that we should encourage hon. Members to visit abroad, I think that they are very brave men indeed who, when they come back after a visit of a few days, feel really qualified to speak in much detail on what they have seen and heard. Whilst I in no way wish to derogate from the importance of the Select Committee on Estimates and the Sub-Committees it appoints, I have always been suspicious of Reports from the Committee for this reason. When the Reports come after tours abroad, I am even more suspicious, because it is essential to get into the atmosphere of these base areas or zones where we are deeply committed before one can start adjudicating on the rights and wrongs of the policies being pursued there.
I would say straight away that I agree with something that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) once said when he asked, "What do we think the Armed Forces are for?" What I am quite certain they are not for is as a means of conveying the British Welfare State about the world. Their purpose is to play their part in defending the world and in deterring war. That is their object. Now and again that can be a very uncomfortable exercise for those most deeply involved in it. Whilst I am all for ensuring the utmost comfort for the maximum number of people, I am not prepared to support in any way something which, when expenditure is limited, results in expenditure being placed on the nonessentials at the expense of the essentials.
There are a great many things in this Report which have a bearing on this. In saying that, I do not wish in any way to underestimate the importance of married quarters to the success of our recruiting programme. I would far prefer to see this Sub-Committee spending all its time with B.A.O.R., in Cyprus or in Aden than have it scampering round several places. It would be far better for us to make a study first of B.A.O.R. in detail.
I am absolutely convinced that we have not exhausted all the possibilities of getting B.A.O.R. on to a one-year tour basis. I know that the Americans tried it at one time and had to give it up. I think that perhaps the reason they did so was because of the enor-


mous distances involved. This problem I do not think arises here. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that until we have solved the B.A.O.R. problem and got the answer to it right, none of the rest will be possible of the best solution.
As long as we have the heavy commitment in B.A.O.R. and the vast expenditure we are indulging in on married quarters there, on the assumption that we are not going to have a one-year tour only, it will be all the more difficult to do for the other areas what we would like to do in providing married quarters and other amenities. I made this suggestion tentatively in a debate on the Estimates last year. This might be something which we should look at again, despite the United States experience, because circumstances are different for the United States forces in Europe from what they are for our own. I believe that this is the dominant problem that affects the whole of British Army policy and that all that this Committee has reported upon is not possible of solution in the way that we would all hope until we have solved that problem.
So far as service in Arab countries is concerned—I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is not here because I want to come back to the article that he wrote in today's Daily Mail—we have to recognise that one thing that we did which has never been forgiven and never will be forgiven by any Arab country was to move out of the mandate of Palestine and allow the State of Israel to be established. Whatever the rights of that, it would be difficult to argue it today. I have always had sympathy with the Arabs in this attitude. I cannot see how we can ever hope for a solution of our difficulties with Egypt and the Yemen until that issue has been cleared up. So long as those millions of Arab refugees remain, so long will there never be a solution of the problem confronting us in Aden because of the Yemen and Egypt. If the Government want to solve this problem, they should take a new initiative in the United Nations to get something done about Arab refugees. Until that happens, the position in Aden will worsen.
I have not been to Aden myself. I have read a good deal about it, and

I have talked to a good many people who have served there. I know that the conditions are about as unpleasant as one could find. There are not many areas which are less attractive for British people to live in. If we regard this as a vital area, as I hope we do, we must make the lives of our troops there as comfortable as possible, subject to the exigencies of service which are inevitable when there are maraudings across frontiers.
I regard Aden as vital for a reason which, apparently, has not occurred to either the hon. Member for Lincoln or my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. It is not oil which makes Aden important. If only hon. Members would do what I have repeatedly begged them to do in debates on the Service Estimates, namely, to look at globes instead of maps, they would see why. It is our polar position in the world which makes it essential that we have various strong points along the lines of communication about the world. We are in a unique position on the surface of the globe. It is for this reason that we must have what I call a triadic policy of the Army, Navy and Air Force. I believe Aden to be a vital point in these lines of communication. It is not, therefore, only oil about which I am concerned.
It is for this reason that we must ensure that we do not allow the position in Aden to get so bad that eventually we have to give it up. We must stay there for the foreseeable future. The sooner that is made absolutely clear to the world the better. I am very glad to see what has been said by the military commanders on the spot. Much as one regrets the apparent misunderstandings which have arisen over recent incidents, wt at the military commanders have said about our intentions to deal with the situation is absolutely right and highly admirable.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to bring about centralisation of the control of the land occupied by the Armed Forces. I take his decision to mean that all the airfields and port and harbour installations—everything which comes within the purview of the Ministry of Defence—will be dealt with centrally in the one Department presided over by


the Minister of Defence for the Army. I commend that. I am sure that it is right. If that is the purpose of setting up this new federal department, I am sure that it is most important that this should happen. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, because I feel that he will have one or two kicks against this before long.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) completely missed the point when he suggested that because of this decision the Ministry of Public Building and Works should be again divided so that the Ministry of Defence takes over the defence building. To my mind, the combination of the two makes it all the more important that there should be one Department in the Ministry of Defence dealing with this. Having made great play at my right hon. Friend's expense about what had happened in, I think, 1956, the hon. Member completely overlooked the significance of the change which had taken place in combining Ministry building with Service building. It was a perfectly proper decision which my right hon. Friend took, and I congratulate him on it.
On costings, it is proper that my right hon. Friend should ensure that his Department does not overspend and that what it spends is spent as well as possible. Having been at the Treasury, he will naturally have that instinct in him. I hope that no one, as a result of this Report, will get the impression that the Armed Forces are being given too much money. Let us be clear that the responsibility of the Armed Forces to keep the peace in the world today is so great—and they are fulfilling a rôle which only this country can fulfil—that we are probably spending millions of pounds too few each year to enable them to carry out their task. However desirable all these other things may be, it is sometimes worth while thinking about what would happen if the Armed Forces were not able to preserve the peace. While I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and his Sub-Committee on the great assiduity that they have shown in their exercise, I hope that they will understand why I am a little suspicious of some of the conclusions which they have drawn.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), whose sincerity this House does not doubt. However, he has completely missed the purpose of an Estimates Committee. I would be out of order if I were to follow what he said. We were seven very different types of people on the Estimates Committee. There were three Conservatives and three Socialists. Two of us would be considered, in loose language, to be Left-wingers. There was, however, one thing which we tried to do—to carry out our function as the watchdog of the House of Commons, to consider military and other expenditure and to keep clear of Government policy and pet theories. As I have said many times, I have pet theories on the Far East, but I propose to keep away from them. Therefore, let us be clear about the purpose of an Estimates Committee. I know that it is elementary, but I think that it should be on the record.
I am grateful to the Government for having instituted the system whereby the findings of Estimates Committees may be debated in Government time, thereby according to an Estimates Committee, whatever it may have been examining, its proper place and dignity within the gamut of our constitutional procedure.
Standing Order No. 80 states:
There shall be a select committee, to be designated the Estimates Committee, to examine such of the estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the committee and report how, if at all, the policy implied in those estimates may be carried out more economically and, if the Committee think fit, to consider the principal variations between the estimates and those relating to the previous financial year".
That is the operative part of the Standing Order. It is absolutely wrong to think that we said that too much was spent on the Armed Forces. We did not say that.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I did not say that the Estimates Committee did say that.

Mr. Davies: That was the implication of the hon. Member's speech. No one wants to criticise military expenditure


more than we do, but let us get the record straight.
Whatever sum of money the Government have decided to expend, the only function of the Estimates Committee is to see that, after it has been approved by the House of Commons, it is spent wisely. Whenever I see some of our troops playing brag with a dirty pack of cards in a N.A.A.F.I. canteen, I resent it as much as I did during the war. I want our forces to have the best. One has only to study Caesar's campaigns against the Celts, when the Roman soldiers were grumbling that they did not have in Bicknor, Bristol and Caerlon all that they wanted, to realise that no military people in history have ever had from their Government all that they wanted. Let us spike the debate down to the purpose of the Estimates Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wishes to add to Standing Order No. 80 to set up a Select Committee of 15 with the special privilege of examining military expenditure. That is completely different from the purpose of the Estimates Committee. It is all right if the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decides to call on 15 experts in the House to go overseas, accompanied by other experts to advise them, to study strategic, logistic and other problems, but that is not the rightful function of the Estimates Committee.
With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker—and I am making no criticism of your Rulings or those of anyone else in the Chair—I consider that 50 per cent. of today's debate has been out of order. At this juncture, it is the Estimate Committee's job to watch the spending of the taxpayer's money.
When we are asked about bringing in experts, I say, "Let us beware of experts." For example, I have taken an interest in atomic energy for years. I was putting down Questions about it twenty years ago, as were other hon. Members. Who among us would have questioned its progress in face of such enthusiastic articles in the scientific Press, in the Financial Times, in the Manchester Guardian, as it was then, and in other authoritative journals, about the wonderful discoveries of such things as Zeta? People made speeches about the great changes

already under way and how sea water would be turned into gold. We were told we would have the Midas touch. Wonderful articles were written by people who were not themselves experts but who were advised by experts.
Some experts ooze with expertise and completely lack common sense and wisdom. One needs the balance of the layman, who quite rightly takes the advice of the expert and respects it, but who, because he does not live within the periphery of one specialised range of knowledge, is able to mesh the experts into life and living. What we on the Estimates Committee try to do is to mesh the experts into the needs of the House and the country.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely asked how, on a short visit, we could get to know about a country. We were not there to do that. In any case, most of us had been there before. We were not there to study the local diet or the religious customs of the Adenese, the Maltese or the Malaysians. We were there to look at British expenditure by and for British people on behalf of the British Government, which is a thing we were qualified to judge. No doubt the hon. Member himself would have pronounced judgment on these things, and, indeed, we would have valued his help. I want it put on record that I do not think that this debate has been used to the advantage that could have been gained in discussion on the Estimates Committee and its purpose.
One hon. Member has already referred to costing. As we point out in the Report, we were told that there is no method of costing of bases. I am not blaming the system of accountancy. Nor do I blame the Government entirely. This is a very difficult and complex matter. But it is a fact that we cannot arrive at the cost of a base anywhere in the world. There are, however, modern computer methods and modern accountancy systems, and it is essential to use these. Even a Labour Government could not judge the cost of bases without such methods. I hope I have put that point fairly enough.
I believe that such methods are necessary for the future, becauses no analysis of the country's economy in relation to the military machine will be


worth anything otherwise. We need valid answers to such questions as how much we can spend on welfare, health, pensions and other things. But how can we make a really valid judgment if we do not know the costs of what are regarded as essential bases overseas?
Aneurin Bevan resigned over this issue, and the dynamic personality now sitting opposite to me—the Secretary of State himself—a few years ago stood up in this House and talked about the relativity of military expenditure to the economy. I am not making a crack at him. I am merely stating the facts of our expenditure. Consequently, we must put our house in order. If the military people and the Defence Department say that they cannot find out the costs of bases, we must nevertheless order them to find out so that we can study the costs—allowing for a reasonable margin of error—in this House.
There is another misunderstanding among some hon. Members. I have had a number of letters about married quarters, and the Secretary of State was kind enough to consider them. The suggestion has been made that we could give a grant to a man to go overseas for a short time unaccompanied. I have suggested £500 or £600 as this incentive. This money could be put in a bank to be used by the man towards buying a house when he finished his service with the Forces. Of course, such a scheme would have to be voluntary. Would it work?
I do not know whether it would. I have discussed it with troops in many parts of the world. Some of the younger ones have said they would not have it at any price. It has not been mentioned today, but on page 149 of the Report of the Estimates Committee we said—discussing personnel maintenance rates in Malta—
The current policy of all three Services is that wherever possible the married officer or man posted for service overseas should be accompanied by his wife and family. Great importance was attached by the Grigg Committee (Cmnd. 545) to the development of this policy on grounds of recruiting and morale but other considerations are, of course, involved.
Later we go on:
The question of the current restriction on the recruitment of married men is not directly linked with the problems of accom-

panied service overseas. As the Secretary of State for War explained in the House on 14th March, 1963, recruiting for the Army is now entering a new phase. In the final build-up emphasis is being placed on getting the right men, and getting them into the right Arms and Corps. The recent restrictions on recruiting, and a revised selection procedure, have been devised to meet the needs of this new phase. So far as married men are concerned they are now accepted only if:—

(a)they have certain specified qualifications, or trade skills;
(b)they are ex-Service men; or
(c)they can claim a relation, past or present, in the corps or regiment of their choice."


That implies, whether the House likes it or not, that the cost of married quarters overseas has influenced our recruitment policy. This is a factor the House should bear in mind.
To sum up, we were grateful to the Ministry of Defence for putting all the facilities at our disposal, but the House should realise that it is in command and should demand its own right to go overseas. We ourselves had to send for another clerk. It was not a matter of working six hours a day. Sometimes we worked 14 hours a day in the heat. Therefore, our clerks were overworked. No typists were sent there for us. We had to beg from the Ministry of Defence, and the Services, with pleasure, gave us typists and so on.
Never again—we were pioneers in this—should an Estimates Committee go overseas representing this Mother of Parliaments and yet dependent on the charity or even the courtesy of Ministers of Defence or other Ministries in doing so. It should go as of right. It should have stenographers—I do not like the word—and clerks, so that we do not depend on the people we may have to criticise or the people who may be helping us.
I believe that we broke fresh ice. For the first time we have looked into military expenditure overseas as the House of Commons has never before quite looked into it. Whatever the destiny of our political lives may be after the General Election, I hope that this tradition will be maintained and the procedure improved and that new methods of checks and surveys of military expenditure will be evolved, not for the good of one party but for the good of the British taxpayer.

7.52 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I am not a members of the Estimates Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will not think I am out of order in anything I say, but I think that during the debate we have been lucky in being allowed to discuss to a certain extent policy, which seems to be absolutely right, since it is policy which basically is responsible for expenditure.
First, I support most strongly my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in his statement that our Forces and bases in various areas of the world are not there to protect only our commercial interests. It may be important that they should be there for that purpose, but that is by no means the most important purpose. I was most alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Opposition's Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, remark that none of our overseas bases are necessary for the security of this country. I may not have got his exact words, but that was the meaning of them.

Mr. Harold Davies: The words were "for the survival of this country". That has a different connotation.

Captain Elliot: I am prepared to accept the word "survival"; it makes little difference; but I thought the hon. Gentleman said "security". His words reminded me very much of the words spoken before the last war about Czechoslovakia, a country far away about which we knew little. I should have thought that by now most people in this country, and certainly most hon. Members, would take the view that the defence, the security or survival of this country is not assured only from this country. On the contrary, the defence or survival of this country and of the Western world is secured by the presence of our forces in segments or areas dotted all round the world. I hope that when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) winds up the debate for the Opposition he will say something about that and state whether he agrees with that or not.
I want to reiterate something that one or two other hon. Members have said. I must confess—I have said this previously—that I have found somewhat

irksome the fact that as the bases which we build in overseas countries are completed, or just before or just after they are completed, they are absorbed, through political developments, by the countries in which they are built. My right hon. Friend asked us to go carefully on the question of security of tenure because if we examined the security of our overseas bases too closely we might come to the conclusion that none was secure. I do not think that we should necessarily come to that conclusion, but if we did, we certainly ought to take it into account. Without going into it at length, I should like to commend for his consideration the provision of mobile bases. They need strong, secure areas from which they can emerge, but mobile bases could provide everything that is necessary, as they did in the last war, for the operations that we have in mind in many areas of the world where we have responsibilities.
There have been quotations from the very excellent Report of some items of expenditure which might have been saved if we had considered political developments. There was the housing in Malta, the primary school and the shop at Gilgil in Kenya, and, above all, the Templar Barracks. I seem to have recollections of a base at MacKinnon Road in Kenya which was being developed not long ago, and it always struck me that it would have very little use in the future, but that is not mentioned.
Perhaps these things are past, but there is one place at which it might be possible to save money, and that is mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Report. I refer to El Adem and the accommodation for families. I would be the last to say that one should economise on housing for the families of Servicemen overseas. I do not know whether El Adem has changed very much since I knew it during the war—I very much doubt whether it has—and whether the addition of some married quarters would improve it greatly—I doubt it.
However, recently there have been rumblings in Libya throwing doubt on the security of our tenure there. I do not know what they amount to, but we have done without accommodation there for a good many years, and it


appears now, according to the Committee, that 101 married quarters are being built there at a cost of about £700,000. I do not know when these will be completed, but I hope that consideration that will be given to whether they will be completed in time or not. I should have thought that if that was an unaccompanied station, it would have been easy, with modern air communications, to give leave to the men and fly them home as a temporary measure if in due course the base was to be given up.
The other point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, is the question of amenities such as housing, and weighing these against the operational facilities that are necessary. My hon. Friend did not quote the case mentioned in the Report and I should like to do so. The Report draws attention to the current years works estimate for Cyprus which includes £1,245,000 for married quarters, and the completion of a new hospital costing nearly £1 million. I have no doubt that they are extremely important, but a figure of only £311,000 is quoted for airfield works and it is suggested that the operational facilities at the airfield are less than could be desired. This is very important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay attention to it. It is no good building up amenities if the troops have not the wherewithal with which to fight.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing into effect the single administration for land. This will be an enormous achievement if it works, and if my right hon. Friend can do that he will be able to do practically anything in getting common services between the three arms. I have in mind medical services, the procurement of common stores, provisions, and so on, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue that line to the bitter end.
I go much further than my right hon. Friend does, in that I believe that we should have one Service, but there are many common services which at present could be administered by one authority. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press forward with that, because I think that it will have good effects on the three Services as a whole quite apart from the immediate economies.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This is a relatively new procedure, and I feel that if we are to make it work properly we must play fair by the other Sub-Committees. That means giving the Home Office the best part of two hours, and therefore I shall cut my speech short by saying nothing more.

8.3 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am sure that the House appreciates the generosity of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but regrets that it will prevent us from hearing another of his eloquent speeches.
I have very little to say beyond a few words in my capacity as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. I thank the House for a very good debate. It has, I hope, justified the existence of the Estimates Committee.
Various themes have run through the debate. I propose to deal with only one for about two minutes. I am referring to the remarks, some well informed, some ill informed, about the functions of the Estimates Committee. It has not been pointed out clearly, except by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), that this was a pioneer exercise in that for constitutional reasons, which cannot be surmounted, the Estimates Committee cannot go abroad as the Estimates Committee. We could not have a Committee which represented the House in miniature at the mercy of an external Government, nor could it send for people and papers if it was abroad. That is categorical, and I cannot see how one can get round that.
The Minister of Defence was good enough to invite members of the Sub-Committee to come as individuals to collect all the information that they could. In this way back benchers can familiarise themselves with Government expenditure abroad, whether it is defence expenditure or any other. I hope that one moral of this Report and this debate is that this practice should be greatly extended.
I hope that hon. Members will not go too far in pressing for the setting up of an expert Select Committee which will cross-examine Ministers and examine Departments, permanent defence committees, or whatever they are, because


the Estimates Committee, in so far as it achieves success does so for one reason, and one reason only, namely, that its affairs are conducted in an all-party spirit. The day when party politics rears its ugly head in a Select Committee will be the day when that Committee is finished and done for, and the system begins to meet its doom.
It is my proud boast that since I have been Chairman of the Estimates Committee—not because of it, but coincidentally—there has not been a division of opinion in that Committee. I guarantee that if an outside visitor, or a man from Mars, watched the proceedings of the Committee he would not have the faintest idea to which parties the various Members belonged. This Sub-Committee, with at least two ebullient and colourful Members on it, acted in complete harmony. Any Select Committee of the House, which must consist of Members of all parties, can be useful only if it retains that all-party, or non-party, spirit.
I do not wish to keep the House from the next subject for debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir F. Markham: I can more than take a hint, especially when it comes from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME OFFICE (ESTIMATES COMMITTEE'S REPORTS)

8.7 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House takes note of the Eleventh Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Second Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to the Home Office".
I should like to thank those who have made possible this second discussion following the Report of the Estimates Committee. This is the Eleventh Report of the Estimates Committee, and it deals with the Home Office.
There have been two debates on this matter. The first was on 27th November last year, on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. During that debate the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and the Home Secretary himself at col. 346 promised that there would be a review dealing with the whole question of immigration—not just the particular points to which the Report called the attention of the Home Office. So far nothing has eventuated. What is the position with regard to that review? What conclusions have been reached? When was the review started? There seems to be some doubt about whether it was started early this year, or early in the Session. That means that already 12 months have elapsed without any result being produced.
I am particularly concerned about this, because there was not a word to the Sub-Committee investigating these matters that there was to be a review of any kind. It was promised that the results of the review would be available very shortly. Four or five months have elapsed since the Home Secretary undertook to report the results of that review to the House.
One of the most valuable things about these debates is that one can follow up these matters, so that one does not feel that their investigation produces no result at all. This is particularly true of the Home Office. I do not want to be more contentious than is necessary, but in my opinion the whole attitude of the Home Office in regard to this Eleventh Report amounted to a brush-off of the Committee, which had gone into these matters as carefully as it was able to do.
The other matter debated, which was raised in an Adjournment debate on 2nd December, concerned the publication of Civil Defence Handbook No. 10. The Government spokesman on that occasion—I believe it was the Joint Under-Secretary—said that the document was a training manual. If it was a training manual it is an extraordinary thing that on page 4 it said quite clearly:
This booklet tells you what you could do to protect yourself, your family and your home.
It was suggested that the Home Office should have produced a handbook which would have been more acceptable. What the Estimates Committee had to do, and what it rightly did, was to call attention


to what it considered to be a waste of money. Those are the two matters which have been before the House previously, following on this Report.
The next matter to which I must call attention is Recommendation (12), which deals with the development of the criminal law, and refers specifically to the Fugitive Offenders Act. In 1962, following the then crisis in Cyprus, it was thought that the Act should be amended. After two years had passed it was not unreasonable to ask what was being done about it. It was then said that the matter was one for consultation, and that consultation took a certain amount of time. But it is not unreasonable to ask what has been done about that Recommendation, which related to a question that was particularly exemplified by the case of Chief Enahoro.
A year had elapsed between the Cyprus incident and the case of Chief Enahoro and now, when almost another year has passed, we ought to know what the situation is. I am sorry to be so categorical, but I do not want to spend more time than is necessary in making my speech.
Recommendation (12), to which I have already referred, asks that immediate steps should be taken to reorganise the division of responsibilities between the Home Office, the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Office. The observation made in regard to that Recommendation was that two further Reports of the Criminal Law Revision Committee have been dealt with. The somewhat woolly statement goes on to say:
There is close co-operation between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on all matters of common concern: a recent example is the appointment of a working party of representatives of these and of other interested Departments to review the effectiveness of the present system for the provision of court accommodation in England and Wales.
Then there is a further reference, after which the statement goes on:
The Secretary of State and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, will, however, take a suitable opportunity of examining any further points of detail in relation to which there may be doubt as to the precise division of responsibility between Departments.
That is not satisfactory. Even Sir Charles Cunningham, in evidence, indicated that there was no logical reason for this distinction, which was a difficult

one to make, and he said that it was to a great extent an historical one which did not always lead to a line of demarcation which could be defended as strictly logical on every ground, but which worked reasonably well. It is not using one's imagination too much to visualise a nice cosy chat about the situation.
In criminal courts the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration and the appointment of officers, while the Home Secretary deals with procedure. On the other hand, in the magistrates' courts the Home Secretary deals with administration and the appointment of officers, while the Lord Chancellor deals with procedure. One can imagine a very nice friendly arrangement being arrived at, which would make it very puzzling to know whose really was the responsibility for these matters, which are of grave importance and which require careful consideration.
I am convinced that this historical difficulty ought to be cleared up. There should be a complete overhaul, and some arrangement should be made as a result of which there would be a clear division of responsibility, and no investigation would be required. This does not mean that we should have some body which turns out laws and runs things entirely separately, over and above the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, but the existing responsibility should be made quite clear, so that there is no need for these discussions.
Next, I want to refer to the question of the general department, which has been described as the residuary legatee—which is a very polite way of referring to what is coloquially called a "rag-bag" of all the things that nobody else has. This is Recommendation (18):
…to review the whole structure and organisation of the General Department with a view not only to improving its organisation, but also to ascertaining whether any of its duties might not more appropriately be performed by other Government Departments.
The observation was a rather terse one—"This is being done."
I should like to know what is being done about this matter. What has happened as the result of the review? Is the Home Secretary really satisfied that a happy combination of racial discrimination and explosives is the most desirable way of running our affairs?
I hope that I shall be forgiven for my anxiety not to speak for too long, because I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I may, therefore, have covered some matters rather scrappily. I come finally to Recommendation (13) which relates to grants to the Metropolitan Police. Originally someone could not resolve the situation in respect of what ought to be paid to the Metropolitan Police, and said, "We will pay £100,000 a year." That has gone up to £500,000. We suggested an immediate inquiry for
a more appropriate system of payment to the Metropolitan Police for their special services.
I submit that that is the right way to treat this matter which is essentially one for the Estimates Committee. A sum of £500,000 is being paid, and that may be the right or the wrong amount. But no one can know more about it. It has been agreed by the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police that this is what they will do:
The Secretary of State is satisfied that the circumstances in which the Metropolitan Police are required to undertake special services are unique, and that the principle of an additional Exchequer grant to the Metropolitan Police Fund on that account should be maintained. There however, great difficulties in making any precise assessment or allocation of the specific costs from year to year of particular services in this field. The Secretary of State and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury therefore agreed, after careful examination, that the grant should continue from 1961–62 to be paid on a flat rate basis, but at a level revalued to take account, among other things, of the change in money values; and they do not consider that a further inquiry would reveal a more appropriate system of payment in this case.
That seems to me an intolerable answer to give to the Estimates Committee. After all, there must be responsibilities for Estimates and the agreement is apparently passed on what is known as a careful examination, but there is no indication of what was the careful examination. There is no indication of how the £100,000 has gone up to £500,000. The only answer is that it seems to be the figure agreed between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police authorities. Since the original arrangement was made the block grant system has come into being and surely some consideration should be given to dividing up the amount so that one may know what the Exchequer is paying for.
I am sorry that we are critical of the manner in which this matter has been dealt with. But these are things which we examine carefully in order to be helpful and to improve administration. I do not often quote from The Times. but it stated that the Estimates Committee is the eyes and ears of the public whose interests the Departments are maintained to serve. There is nothing exactly parallel to the Home Office, and that we realise; but to promise reviews and not to produce them and report to the House means that the Estimates Committee is justified in raising these matters at every opportunity until something is done and is seen to have been done.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: My first duty is to pay tribute to the Chairman of Sub-Committee C. He carried out his duties during long sittings with fidelity and assiduity which recommended itself to every member of the Committee. No sub-committee could have had a more competent chairman or a better guide than the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). I am certain that every member of the Sub-Committee will agree with what I have said when tomorrow, I hope, they read it in HANSARD.
I support the hon. Member very firmly in all that he said. He felt, and I also think, that the Home Office has treated this whole matter with the sort of light touch that we associate with Puck and not with the sober mien of a Home Secretary. I should not perhaps be over-strong in my language, but we feel that the work we put into this task has been ill-judged by the Home Office, or perhaps I should say by the Home Secretary, and has not received the treatment which our labours deserved.
It may be merely a coincidence, but it is also apposite, that we were concerned with the safety of our fellow citizens in the event of war and were meeting in the trail of a fellow sub-committee which had been dealing with the military aspect of this problem. In a way, the two were complementary, but the contrasting treatment meted out to them was distinctive. The earlier subcommittee was dealing with a Treasury expenditure of about £2,000 million. Its job was to consider what I may crudely describe as the destruction of human life


while ours was to consider trying to save human life. We, from the same source, get £23 million per year. That, I gather, is the Home Office expenditure as detailed in one of the memoranda that came to us—2½d. per person per week—to make sure that some of the citizens of this country may survive in the event of nuclear attack.
In dealing with the particular part which I propose to present to the House I should first try to present the overall picture as I see it. Civil defence, with which I intend particularly to deal, is faced with the possibility in the event of war of nuclear attack. In order to provide the setting it is worth while to point out that according to authorities I have consulted one bomb would destroy completely everything within an area of 3,140 square miles. That is a circle with a radius of 100 miles. Those who are familiar with ∏r2 will be able to correct or verify that.
Twenty-eight bombs would wipe out Great Britain completely, as the area of the British Isles is 88,000 sq. miles. Twenty-eight bombs would wipe us completely off the map. There would be no need to worry about civil defence. The Home Office memoranda points out that a nuclear attack would destroy millions of people, yet millions would survive. It is the millions who would survive in whom we must be interested and in whom the Sub-Committee was interested, but the extent of the nuclear attack and its weight were not in any way examined by the Home Office. I therefore point out that 28 bombs of existing power would entirely wipe out this country.
As we know, that power will go on increasing and the number of bombs necessary will become less. To contrast that position with the situation which exists in the nation towards which our missiles are pointed, we should remember that the Soviet Union has an area of 8½ million sq. miles. To destroy the Soviet Union completely would require 2,700 bombs. Therefore, in the event of a nuclear attack, the chance of survival depends more on the size of the country than any precautions such as those outlined to us by the Home Office can possibly offer. I do not suppose for a minute that we have 2,700 bombs in this country, but if I were to speculate

on that much further I would be taken into avenues wider than I am entitled to enter.
I am dealing particularly with civil defence but I should have been very happy to have covered a wider area. However, other hon. Members want to speak and our time is limited. I regret that limitation very much, because I am certain that the Chairman of my Sub-Committee will agree that to deal with civil defence requires as much time as does the problem of military training and military attack.
I want to deal particularly with recommendation (15), which has been criticised by the right hon. Gentleman. The related paragraph says that sub-Committee C heard a good deal of evidence from the Home Office. It was very competent evidence, and as it came from very highly and, I assume, accurately, informed witnesses, we took careful note of it. We spent a good deal of time dealing with the various aspects of civil defence. After considering all that had been said, we state:
Your Committee do not feel that this pamphlet
that is, the pamphlet issued by the right hon. Gentleman which deals with protective measures
achieves any useful purpose. They recognise that any judgment of its merits must be largely subjective and a matter of personal opinion, but in their view the information contained in the pamphlet is of such a general and simple character that it will be of little value to members of the civil defence corps, who must already be well aware of the contents. Although primarily intended as a training publication, it is written in the form of advice to the householder, to whom, however, it is not readily available.
There is only one Stationery Office in Scotland, and that is in Edinburgh. I was assured in the Sub-Committee that the pamphlet could be had of any bookseller, but no bookseller I asked knew anything of it. It may be that information spreads slowly from the Home Office—let us hope that the torchbearer will not arrive in Edinburgh too late.
The Report goes on:
Your Committee do not feel that many householders will purchase the pamphlet from the Stationery Office, nor do they feel that those who do will be convinced of the effectiveness of the measures proposed therein. In the opinion of Your Committee the average householder who reads what to do in the event of imminent nuclear attack, and is told, if driving a vehicle, that he should 'Park off the


road if possible; otherwise alongside the kerb', will not form the impression that the civil defence measures taken by the Government are of any value whatever.
Your Committee are anxious that the public should be aware of the steps that are being taken to protect them, and they feel that this pamphlet creates entirely the wrong impression. They therefore recommend that Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 should be withdrawn.
That is strong language, but it was forced from us as a result of the evidence presented to us by people who were eminently qualified to talk on the subject. I realise that the Home Secretary has perhaps been a little peeved, shall I say, at the strength of our language. He states in the Second Special Report that he
decided to issue this handbook as a training publication for the civil defence, police and fire services, with the object of indicating to members of those services the sort of advice which, in the present state of our knowledge and resources, would need to be given in a period of alert to the general public about the precautions they should take. As the handbook will have to be revised from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, the Secretary of State considers that it would have been wasteful to issue it to every household now".
The Secretary of State says that it would be wasteful on his part to issue the handbook to every household now because it will be revised from time to time, but he does not recognise that it will be equally wasteful for householders to spend 9d. every time he decides to revise the handbook. People will think that way. It is a reason why in our view the pamphlet should have been distributed free.
The right hon. Gentleman defends himself by saying that it has been placed on sale and so is available to anyone who wants it. It may have been placed on sale, but it is not readily available, so far as I have been able to discover. The right hon. Gentleman tells us:
Over half a million copies have already been distributed or sold.
How many have been distributed? How many have been sold?
Judged by its proper purpose as a training manual, there has been hardly any criticism of it by those who use it. In reply to questions, the Sub-Committee was told that the training period was sometimes a day and on the average three days, from which it does not seem

that much time was presented to students to start criticising the pamphlet. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that
he intends to keep its contents under review in the light of new developments and techniques aid in future editions to introduce any necessary revisions.
All that portends a continuing outgoing of these methods of civil defence. It all adds up to support for the Committee's contention that the pamphlet, because of its vital nature, ought to be distributed free to those whom it is trying to help in the case of a nuclear attack. We are told in all the arguments presented by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to us that it is a technical pamphlet, but in answer to our Question No. 1701 we are told that the handbook
was not intended to be a technical handbook at all, but…a fairly clear indication to the householder of what he could do to help himself in an emergency.
There is a contradiction within the Home Office and this is bound to lead to confusion in the public mind. The sub-Committee deplored this.
I appreciate that time is marching on and that there may be anxiety in some quarters because only one and a quarter hours remains for the debate. We have been criticised because, we were told, we have presented only one example of the sort of ridicule that had befallen the pamphlet. It is full of them. We are told, for instance, that water is more essential to life than food. That is a truism, but air is more essential than either. One can live for three weeks without food and three days without water, but one can live for only three minutes without air.
Despite this, nothing is said about what one should do about air contamination by radiation, which cannot be seen, felt, heard or smelt. How can one prevent it entering the lungs and choking one when one thinks that the air being breathed is clear? People are merely told, because water is more essential than food, to fill a bath with clear, fresh water. I wonder if the Home Secretary has ever visited Govan, which I have the privilege to represent. Baths? They are in scarce supply. Whole tenements often have only what is called the "jawbox"—yet the Home Secretary wants each family to fill a bath with water. They do not have baths to fill.
Then we come to the question of sanitation, and we are told:
You could not rely on being able to use your W.C. There might not be enough water to flush it, or the sewerage system might be damaged.
What to do? People are told:
Keep the things listed below in the fallout room or within easy reach outside the door: Large receptacles with covers and with improvised seats for use as urinals, and for excreta. Ashes, dry earth, or disinfectant, toilet paper, clean newspapers, brown paper or strong paper bags (to wrap up food remains and empty tins), dust bin with well fitting lid for pets. Keep a box of earth or ashes.
The Home Secretary does not seem to be aware that to many of my constituents it is not a question of having a fall-out room but a fall-in room because in some of the tenements and buildings in which they live the walls are more likely to fall out. In any case, the sort of fall-out the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is not the sort of fall-out my constituents think of. When one has a room and kitchen and a family of six or seven there is no question of having a fall-out room.
As to keeping a box for pets, we should be frank and admit that the best thing to do with pets is to get rid of them. There will be enough to worry about, looking after human beings, without worrying about pets, particularly in the kind of tenements that exist in Glasgow.
Another example given is that during this protective period a husband, if wearing long boots, must take them off before coming into the house and his wife should present him with a pair of shoes. In fact, often when the wife comes towards her husband with a pair of shoes it is not to give him the shoes in this way but to use them in another way. This may make people laugh. While no one denies the need for advice of this type, I do not think it should have been presented fictionally but should have been given in written form. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will give us a more serious reply to the work which Sub-Committee C has put into the question of civil defence—a more serious reply than has so far been given either in his own special report or in the little pamphlet which the Sub-Committee condemned.

8.50 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: We are all indebted to the Estimates Committee for this Report. Quite apart from its recommendations, it is useful because it gives an excellent account of the scope of the Home Office. It contains valuable memoranda and evidence, together with the Report and conclusions.
The Home Office is a vast Department with diverse functions. Over the years some of its functions have been hived off and others have been added, but even so, there is a formidable and varied list. Some—prisons, the Children's Department and so on—are very important functions and others—such as the protection of birds—are of minor importance. As we are told in the Report, it is one of the oldest Departments of State, but the Report also says that in the 20th century the Home Office is trying to do its work with the methods of the 19th century. That is the essence of the Committee's Report.
Some of the criticisms in the Report are very severe. I heard an hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite say "Nonsense", and if it were the Home Secretary exploding in that way, I suggest that that is the way in which he has treated the Committee's Report from the very beginning. We are not alone in thinking that, for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) quoted from The Times, and I could quote from The Times and other newspapers which felt that the Home Secretary's reply to this Report showed a good deal of contempt for the Committee's work.
Some of the criticisms are severe. On the Immigration and Nationality Department the Committee said that this Department needed
a drastic overhaul.
It recommended that the Home Office and the Treasury should
carry out an extensive reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Department.
On approved schools the Committee said that
a full inquiry should be carried out into the whole of the approved school system.
I will return to that in a moment. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) about the criticism of the civil


defence pamphlet. On the General Department the Committee said that a joint committee of the Home Office and the Treasury should be set up to review its whole structure and organisation. Paragraph XXXV on page 35 reads,
Your Committee have been impressed in many ways with the matter in which the Home Office discharges its many tasks and with the organisation of a Department whose wide responsibilities make efficient administration difficult. They do, however, feel that there is a certain lack of urgency in some departments of the Home Office.
At the end of the paragraph the Committee says:
They would not for one moment suggest that this position should be weakened, but they feel that simultaneously the Home Office should endow itself with an equally strong sense of the need for speed, if its organisation is to be capable of maintaining a standard of efficiency appropriate to a great Department of State.
These are some of the chief criticisms and the conclusions to which the Committee came.
The Immigration and Nationality Department was discussed at some length on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill last November, but I want to draw attention again to the rather extraordinary situation whereby everyone who comes into the country fills in a landing card and when he or she goes out an embarkation card is filled in. There are millions of these cards, but most of them are never checked out. I always thought in my simple way that these cards were not only married together but were systematically checked. We are told that for those who are considered bona fide travellers this not so, but that a sample is taken occasionally.
This seemed to me, and it seemed to the Estimates Committee, a great waste of time and an inefficient way of dealing with the matter. The immigration officials do a good job in spotting undesirable immigrants, but the present system is entirely unsatisfactory. Here I part company with the Estimates Committee, because I do not like the alternative proposed by the Committee that cards should be filled in only by those who are not considered to be bona fide travelers.
This opens the door wide to a great many things. If it is known that those considered to be bona fide travellers do not have to fill in a card, it seems to me that it would be quite simple for un-

desirable immigrants to come in and to pretend to be bona fide travellers. I am sure that the immigration officials could not spot them in 100 per cent. of cases. Therefore, while I think the present system to be entirely unsatisfactory I do not like the solution put forward by the Estimates Committee. I do not know a great deal about computers and mechanical aids but we are told that these machines can do all sorts of marvellous things and I should have thought that it would have been possible to get a computer which could have married up the cards.
The Home Secretary told the Committee that this matter was being looked into. I hope that tonight he will be able to tell us what progress has been made. In many of his replies to the Report of the Estimates Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that the particular matters were under constant review. Like the hon. Member for Aldershot, I hope that tonight the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has been happening in the last few months as a result of some c f these matters being kept under constant review.
The hon. Member for Aldershot referred to the Criminal and Probation Department and I was glad that the Committee drew attention to the functions of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department. It is important that the functions of these three Departments should be clearly defined. But I myself—I am sure that this is true of many hon. Members—find it difficult sometimes to decide to whom queries should be addressed. I believe that great misunderstandings arise as between these three Departments. It is important that there should be a distinction between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department but at present there appears to be a blurring between the two in some respects. Not only is there a blurring but, as the Committee points out, there is overlapping and confusion which may cause difficulty in the administration of the law as well as in the reform of the criminal law.
Although we have had a certain amount of law reform during the past few years, everyone in the House knows that law reform is particularly slow and there are many Measures which ought to


be on the Statute Book for which we have been waiting a long time. The Committee gives the example of the Fugitive Offenders Act, saying in paragraph 36:
It appears to Your Committee that in the case of the Fugitive Offenders Act the Home Office showed a lack of urgency and foresight which has caused considerable embarrassment and expense, to put it no higher.
In paragraph 35, the Committee says:
In Your Committee's opinion the Home Office has not been successful in this aim"—
that is, the aim of getting more legislation on the Statute Book—
and the backlog of legislation in urgent need of revision is in their view serious.

Sir Barnett Janner: The Government have plenty of time now.

Miss Bacon: I hear my hon. Friend say that the Government have plenty of time in the coming few weeks, but I do not think that a few weeks would compensate for the few lost years in putting on the Statute Book some of the very important Measures which are needed.
There is the Criminal Law Revision Committee, but its members serve part-time; they are busy people who can only do this kind of work in the spare time which they have. There should be a permanent Commission sitting all the time to deal with this very important matter of law reform.
I turn now to the Children's Department. This department is today better than it was four or five years ago. For one thing, we are getting much more information from it than we used to have. At the time when the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, was going through the House, it was very difficult for those who were members of the Standing Committee to know exactly what was happening in the Children's Department because we had very few reports from it at all. I think that there was a space of seven years between one report and another. Now, at least, after the efforts of some of us—I see here my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who played a great part on that Bill and the Children and Young Persons Bill—we now have, by law, a report from the Children's Department every three years and a statistical report

every year. But this is because we pressed for it at the time when the Criminal Justice Act was going through the House, and our proposals were at first strenuously resisted.
The Report of the Estimates Committee makes the point that some of the responsibilities of the Home Office might, perhaps, be taken over by other Ministries. A point often discussed is whether or not the Children's Department and the whole care of children should be in the hands of the Home Office or the hands of the Ministry of Education. There is a theoretical case for the Ministry of Education having control of the care of children through the Children's Department, but I am not sure that this would be right in practice.
Although in the past I have criticised the Children's Department of the Home Office, I have always been full of admiration for the children's committees of local authorities, who, I believe, have done a particularly fine job. They have one particular function, and they have discharged it admirably. I believe that if the care of children anti the Children's Department were taken over by the Ministry of Education responsibility for the care of children might go to the back of the queue as, I am sorry to say, the special schools appear to have gone in the Ministry of Education. I do not blame the education authorities too much. Although some blame attaches to them, they have a lot to do and their finance and building programmes have often been cut by the Government. The local education authorities have not had all the resources which they would have liked for our schools.
I was very pleased to see the remarks of the Committee about approved schools. Indeed, the Report of the Estimates Committee endorses what some of us have been saying about the approved school system over the last three or four years. We said it at the time of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, and last year during the progress of the Children and Young Persons Bill. The Home Secretary only last year swept away my criticism of the approved school system in the same way as he has swept aside the criticism of the Estimates Committee with regard to the


approved schools. The Home Secretary tried to make it appear that when we are criticising the approved school system, we are in some way criticising the approved school staffs. That is absolute nonsense. I have the greatest admiration for the work which the teachers do in the approved schools.
There are a few matters in this Report that I should like to raise. The Estimates Committee draws attention to the fact that it costs £11 6s. 3d. a week to keep a child in an approved school. It has reckoned that on an average stay of 18 months, it costs about £900 for each child sent to an approved school. For some children it costs much more than that, because children who go into approved schools early in life seem to stay there a long time. The Report for 1961, shows that nine children were in as approved school for over 60 months, that is over five years. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. Nine children were in approved schools between 64 and 60 months, so that the cost for some children is much more than the £900 which the Committee has used as an illustration.
The Estimates Committee is concerned with the finance of this. If by spending £1,000 we could ensure that a juvenile delinquent became a useful member of society for the rest of his or her life, I should consider that money well spent. But, as the Estimates Committee points out, the success rate in approved schools does not lead us to believe that this is happening. In fact, the success rates have been going down. We see from the Report for 1961 that of the boys released from an approved school over the previous three years only 43 per cent. have not been in further trouble, and 57 per cent. have been found guilty of an offence in the first three years after leaving approved school. Therefore, it does not lead me to believe that we are being very successful with our approved schools.
It is stated that 86 per cent. of girls are satisfactory and that 14 per cent. are unsatisfactory, but this means nothing because 65 per cent. of the girls in approved schools are there not because they have committed an offence but because they are in need of care, protection and control. In most cases they

have had sexual offences committed against them. It is therefore very difficult to measure the success rate among girls when they leave approved schools.
I have said before that I think that taking children away from home, besides being expensive, as the Estimates Committee pointed out, usually creates far more problems than it solves. The Estimates Committee asked the Home Office why more use had not been made of attendance centres to which boys can go on Saturday afternoons. I asked this question of the Home Secretary during last week's debate on juvenile delinquency. He said that it was not possible to find places where there would be sufficient young people to fill the attendance centre. I am not sure that I believe that.
I have been considering some of the places where we have attendance centres. To take one at random, Dewsbury, which is quite a small town, has an attendance centre. During 1961, 88 attendance orders were made for Dewsbury. I should have thought that there were many places of the size of Dewsbury where there are not attendance centres and where they would be a very useful way of dealing with juvenile delinquents.

Sir E. Errington: Attendance centres are of great merit because they can be set up in schools when the school children are not there. A building programme is not involved, as is the case with so many of these things.

Miss Bacon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Most attendance centres are run by the police, but there is no reason why they should all be run by the police. They could be run by other organisations.
I wonder whether the Estimates Committee saw the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, published in 1962, on the non-residential treatment of offenders under the age of 21 in which an attempt was made to see whether we should follow the Boston scheme of having training centres for young people. The Advisory Council came to the conclusion that it would not be right to have training centres. A lot of people—I am one of them—where very disappointed about this. We felt that more could be done on those lines.

Dr. Horace King: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be a bad thing to have the attendance centre at a school in case schools were regarded as places of punishment?

Miss Bacon: That may be. Most of the attendance centres are not in schools. They are in other buildings, but, except for one or two, they are not in buildings built specially for them. They are in buildings used for other purposes during the week and as attendance centres on Saturday afternoons.
I should like to hear from the Home Secretary why there was such a difference between the Estimates Committee's estimate for new approved school places of, I think, £8,600 each and the Home Secretary's reply that they would cost £2,700 each. This seems to me extraordinary. I cannot think that the Estimates Committee, after hearing all the evidence given by the Children's Department of the Home Office, could have been so misled as to make such a very great mistake between £8,600 and £2,700.
The Estimates Committee says that it believes the time has come for an investigation into the whole system of approved schools, and I agree. It is not only the financial aspects that are wrong. No other institutions completely financed by public funds have so little democratic and public control. Only 27 approved schools are run by local authorities. The rest are run by voluntary organisations or ad hoc committees. Yet all the money for approved schools comes from public funds. There should certainly be an investigation. I have been urging as much for a long time, and I am pleased that the Estimates Committee agrees with me.
I will mention the prison service only briefly, although there is a good deal I would like to say. The Estimates Committee emphasises that when a person is in prison there should be a notification so that the State is not paying both his general practitioner and for his medical care while in prison. I believe that it is important that when a man goes to prison the medical authorities should be told not so much in order to save money but because it is important that the prison authorities should know the man's medical history. It is that aspect

which is so very important. I am pleased also that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the recommendation of the Committee that there should be more assistant directors of prisons so that more visits can be made.
We have had many debates in the last few months during the passage of the Police Bill, but the Estimates Committee stresses one point which should be mentioned tonight. This concerns the grant given to the Metropolitan Police Force. Now that the Home Secretary is responsible for the police throughout the country and can call for reports, surely it would be possible, as some of us suggested during the Committee stage of the Bill, for the Metropolitan Police District to coincide with that of the Greater London Council and for the G.L.C. to have a police authority like every other local authority in the country. In that way it could have some financial control over the money spent on the Metropolitan Police. That would have been a way of achieving what the Committee wishes.
I will not deal with civil defence, because it was covered so adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan, but I wish to make one or two general remarks. The first concerns the General Department of the Home Office, referred to by some witnesses before the Committee as the "rag-bag" of the Department. Because the Home Office takes on all the functions of Government not specifically undertaken by any other Government Department, it has a very wide and miscellaneous collection of subjects in the General Department.
I agree with the Estimates Committee that there should be some investigation to see whether or not some of these functions could be taken over by other Government Departments. It always seems silly to me that the Home Office and not the Ministry of Agriculture should he responsible for the protection of wild birds. It is suggested by the Committee that the electoral register should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because it seems to concern local authority problems.
But I believe that not only the General Department but the Home Office as a whole must be looked at. Some people,


both inside and outside this House, believe that the Department is so big and its functions so varied that it could be split into two departments of State. I do not agree with that, but I believe that there is a case for treating the Home Office in the same way as the Ministry of Education has been treated in the last few months, with Ministers of State with specific responsibilities. That could be looked at. I am sorry that the Estimates Committee confined this overall investigation more to the General Department than to the Home Office as a whole.
We are told in paragraph 70, as I have quoted, that there is a certain lack of urgency in some departments of the Home Office. Reading the replies of the Home Secretary to the Estimates Committee, I feel that there is this lack of urgency on the part of the Home Secretary, too. He gives what The Times has called a "brush-off". On 26th November, 1963, The Times said in a long leading article, some of which has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Aldershot, how disappointed it was that the Home Secretary had brushed off the Report from the Estimates Committee.
In giving a brush-off to the Estimates Committee, the Home Secretary said that some of these things were under constant review. I hope that tonight the Home Secretary will tell us just what has happened during the last few months as a result of these things being under constant review. The Home Office is a great Department of State, and we want it to remain so. It is a Department of State of which in the past everybody has been proud. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary, even at this late hour—I refer not to the time this evening but to this late hour after the Report of the Estimates Committee—will show that sense of urgency and responsibility, which the Committee says is lacking, in his attitude towards this very important Report.

9.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am delighted that this debate gives me the opportunity for which I have long been waiting to speak at rather greater length on the Report of the Estimates Committee. The reply sent on behalf of the Home Office to the Estimates Committee was personally approved by me in consultation with the Treasury, but it is

customary for these replies to be kept reasonably brief. I am glad, therefore, to be able to say rather more this evening, thanks to this debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has initiated.
I hope that I can do the greatest courtesy to the Estimates Committee by going through the 18 recommendations. On a few it will be necessary to say only a word or two, but I should like to dwell on those which have given rise to debate this evening.
The first recommendation was:
The Home Office, in consultation with the Treasury and the Ministry of Public Building and Works, should carry out an immediate review of the accommodation of the Home Office with a view to its greater concentration.
This was a matter on which we had already been working for years. My dearest desire is to see the whole of the Home Office concentrated in one building. This is impossible in our present premises; it depends on the new premises across Whitehall being built, into which we can move. This has been a plan which has been under discussion for some time. It has now been announced, and I greatly hope that a building will go up on the other side of Whitehall into which the whole of the Home Office can be concentrated. I entirely agree that that would bring savings of money, staff and time.
The second recommendation was:
The Home Office should consult with the Treasury and the Stationery Office, with a view to introducing further mechanisation within the Home Office as soon as possible.
I can tell the House that the computer about which the Estimates Committee received considerable evidence was delivered to us at the end of 1963. It is already in use for the payment of police salaries. We are planning that it should take on the payment of other salaries, and that it should take on the preparation of criminal statistics and various other tasks.
I have seen the computer. I do not pretend to understand these things, but we certainly hope to make the utmost use of it, and the possibility of mechanisation by the introduction of further new and modern office machinery other than computers is another matter on which we are constantly working. I have my Organisation and Methods


Branch working on that. We are in close touch with specialist officers of the Treasury, and I entirely agree with the Estimates Committee that we should press on as rapidly as possible with further mechanisation in the Home Office, not just for its own sake but wherever we can effect a saving of time and money thereby.
The third recommendation was:
Immigration officers should be given much more extensive information about those people whom the Home Office does not wish to allow to land.
This subject was discussed at some length during the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I have to confess that I am still somewhat at issue with the Estimates Committee here.
My immigration officers who carry out their difficult duties at the ports and airports do not tell me that they want to be supplied with more information. If I read the Estimates Committee Report aright, the Estimates Committee felt that it would be desirable that the book of about 7,000 names of people who are not to be allowed to land should be embellished also with photographs and fingerprints of those people.
If a person comes in giving his right name, it is easy to look him up in the book. One does not need his fingerprints and photograph. But if his real name is Brown and he gives the name of Smith, it does not help very much to have the photograph and fingerprints of Brown, because the immigration officer cannot possibly marry up the two. No person can remember 7,000 sets of fingerprints or 7,000 photographs.
There was a feeling that had the book contained a photograph of M. Bidault he might not have been allowed in. But M. Bidault, being an ex-Prime Minister, was able to provide himself with a genuine passport—it is easy to detect a forged one—correct in all respects except that it gave a different name—not M. Bidault. It would have been impossible for anybody, unless he had personally known M. Bidault, to detect that. This is the very exceptional case where an alien has not had to forge a passport because, owing to his previous position, he had been able to obtain a perfectly genuine one in a name not his own.

Mr. Rankin: We had a great deal of evidence in the case of M. Bidault, but we never discovered how he got in, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has told us. Can he tell us now how M. Bidault got into the country?

Mr. Brooke: I thought that that had been explained, but I can tell the House how it happened. He had held high office in the French Government, and at some stage had possessed himself of a genuine passport. It was correct in all respects, except that it did not describe him by the name of Bidault but by another name which, I gather, he sometimes uses. That is how he got in. That other name was not on the black list, and unless the immigration officer had personal knowledge of M. Bidault's appearance, it would have been impossible to detect him. But this is the most exceptional case, because the average alien wishing to slip past the controls has no means of obtaining a genuine passport. If he comes in under some disguise he will have obtained a forged or altered passport, and that kind of thing can be detected. But there was nothing phoney about this passport, except that the individual concerned had managed to obtain it made out in a different name.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the only way in which an undesirable alien can be detected is if he has a forged passport? Surely it would be a help if the immigration authorities had photographs. If M. Bidault's features had been familiar to the immigration officers he would not have got through.

Mr. Brooke: That is true, but we must bear in mind that the human brain cannot carry 7,000 pictures. It can refer to a book containing 7,000 names, but if somebody arrives under the name of Robinson when he is really a Mr. Jones, to have the fingerprints of Mr. Jones attached to the picture of Mr. Jones is no help at all. The case of M. Bidault was an exceptional one. I could never claim that any system of immigration control is 100 per cent. perfect, but in my opinion our immigration officers do extremely well.

Sir E. Errington: We have already had these observations in one debate, when my right hon. Friend gave a clear


and unambiguous undertaking that there would be a thoroughgoing review covering a much wider field than the question of landing cards. He said that he expected to get the report next year, and that when he got it he would be pleased to make a statement to the House. Has he had that report? If so, what is the result?

Mr. Brooke: This comes under Recommendation (4), which I was just coming to. It says:
The system of landing and embarkation cards for those classed as bona fide visitors should be abolished, and immediate consideration should be given to the possibility of mechanising the Traffic Index for the remaining aliens.
As I pointed out in a previous debate, that creates the extremely difficult practical problem of distinguishing in advance between visitors and others. What we have been doing is to carry out a thoroughgoing review of our system of control, including landing and embarkation cards. I have recently received the report, and am considering it. I would not like to forecast at this moment what conclusion I shall reach. Whichever way one turns one comes into difficulty.
If we could simplify the procedure it would be a tremendous gain in cost, burden of work, and everything else. But somebody would have to pay the price. We cannot say to incoming aliens, "If you are not bona fide visitors you must fill in the cards, but if you are you need not", because everybody who wished to slip into the country would say that he was a bona fide visitor. We must therefore either ask everybody to fill in cards before reaching the immigration officer or provide for a much longer inquiry by the immigration officer than is the case at present. The procedure at the moment is pretty quick. I am inclined to be in favour of a quick passage past the immigration officer. He can look at the landing card which has already been filled in rather than cause a hold-up at that point. But if I can find any way round the problem I will do so.
Another solution would be to assimilate our system of control more to the Continental system, under which there is very little control at the frontiers or at the ports. Control over aliens is

exercised by requiring everybody, nationals included, to carry papers of some kind, which the police can ask for. I think that the British public would find that quite intolerable. Therefore, to avoid putting the burden on the British public we have instituted this strict control of aliens at the ports, although it has some of the disadvantages to which the Estimates Committee drew attention. I certainly intend to think very carefully over this thorough Report which I have received to see whether we can find any way through the problem.
I must say that I do not like the idea of allowing in even people who call themselves bona fide visitors without any record of them at all. Then we should be, so far as I know, the only modern country which would not know whether a particular alien was in the country at any given time. In other countries there is a system, which, again, I think we should Lind most trying and vexatious, whereby a report has to be made whenever an alien is staying in a hotel or private house. It would be quite intolerable if every time any of us had a foreigner staying with us we had to report to the police. That is an alternative and a less acceptable way of ensuring that we know where aliens are.
However, I should like the Estimates Committee to know that the Report has been completed and is under my consideration. If we can find means of simplifying these matters, if there is a case for a major change of policy or we can find any means of streamlining the system, nobody will be better pleased than I. I hope that the House will support me when I say that we ought to maintain a system which is efficient, if only for security reasons, and that we ought not to render it too easy for people to come into the country and be about here when there is not much known about who they are, when they came or when they are likely to leave.

Sir E. Errington: Regarding the 7,000 microfilm photographs which are rarely looked at, has the wider review to which the Home Secretary referred dealt with that?

Mr. Brooke: It has dealt with the whole matter. When my hon. Friend says that the index is seldom referred


to, he is not quite correct. In any case, it is of great value to have an accurate record to which one can refer should the security services or someone else wish to know about a particular alien. The existence of the record is of value even though it may not be referred to frequently. But I mean what I say when I tell the House that I want to think very carefully about this Report which I have now received.
Recommendation (5) says:
The Home Office should regularly issue fuller and clearer advice to the courts setting out the latest interpretation of the law by the courts and the principles on which the Home Secretary acts in reaching his decisions in the cases of recommendations for deportation of Commonwealth citizens.
That has already been done, it is being carried out. I entirely agree with the recommendation and whenever there is anything new to say we shall see that it is made known.
Regulation (6) states that
Immediate steps should be taken to ensure that there should be the least possible delay in reaching a decision about recommendations of the courts for deportation of Commonwealth citizens.
Here there is a difference on policy between the Estimates Committee and myself. When a Commonwealth citizen is sentenced to a term of imprisonment and recommended for deportation, I consider that the right time to take a decision whether or not to act on the recommendation is towards the end of his sentence of imprisonment rather than at the beginning. One then knows more about the circumstances. One has up-to-date information, and has learned something of the man while he has been in prison. I should be very sorry if I took a decision as soon as the person was sent to prison and had to modify it before his time for discharge came. I hope the Estimates Committee will not press me to change my policy on that. I can assure it that we want there to be no delay.
Recommendation (7) was that:
The Home Office and the Treasury should carry out an extensive reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Department".
This is linked with what I have been saying. We must clearly get the policy right first and then examine the structure and the staffing. I should like my hon.

Friend and the House to know that as a result of part of the review we have been making, of which I have spoken, we have made a number of changes and simplifications in the landing conditions imposed by immigration officers so as to reduce the work of immigration officers and the work of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour. We want to simplify wherever we can, but I hope the House will accept that we must first decide what kind of control we are to maintain for the future.
Recommendation (8) is:
The system of financial control of expenditure on approved schools should be investigated.
In fact, we changed the system of control some years ago and the Treasury reported, I think in 1958, to the Public Accounts Committee that it was fully satisfied with the system. I do not see any way in which we could effectively tighten it up. I was asked how it came about that there was a difference between myself and the Estimates Committee on the cost per place of additional places. The cost of additional places in new schools and extensions to existing schools is about £2,700, whereas the Estimates Committee said it was £8,600 a place. The figure of £2,700 is correct.
I can only presume that the figure of £8,600 was arrived at by the Estimates Committee dividing the number of new places, not into the capital cost of providing those new places but into the total capital expenditure of everything to do with approved schools, a great part of which was not concerned with enlarging the schools but with the necessary modernising and rebuilding of old schools, and which did not in fact give rise to any additional places.

Miss Bacon: I am sorry, but I do not quite understand how that accounts for the great difference of about £6,000. I still do not understand why there is that great difference. Could the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on what those particular items were?

Mr. Brooke: It is very difficult for me to explain how the Estimates Committee arrived at a figure which is so grossly incorrect. I can only presume that it did it in this way. Capital expenditure in regard to approved schools is partly related to enlarging


the schools for providing new places, and partly to modernising and rebuilding those schools—the hon. Lady will surely agree that a great deal of that is needed—although in fact no additional accommodation for more boys or girls is provided. It appears that the Estimates Committee took both those elements of capital expenditure, added them together, and divided the total by the number of new places provided, instead of confining itself to the first element, the capital expenditure actually required for enlargement of the schools, and dividing that by the number of new places.
The hon. Lady referred also to a statement in the Estimates Committee's Report which said that a full inquiry should be carried out into the whole approved school system. This is something which should be well within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which has recently been announced. I am not saying that the Royal Commission will have cause to find fault because I think that in general the approved schools do their work extremely well, but I should be the first to grant that approved schools have grown up over a number of years and nothing but good could come from a kind of stocktaking. When, however, she suggests that public money is being paid out to people who are under no sort of democratic control, I remind her that all approved schools are regularly inspected by the Home Office inspectors. That inspection is very thorough, and we should pick it up at once if any approved school were falling below the required standard.
Recommendation No. 9 was that,
The Home Office should draw the attention of the courts to the advantages of attendance centres, and should take steps to ensure that sufficient centres are provided to meet any demand for them.
In 1961 a circular to the magistrates' courts drew attention to my predecessor's readiness to open new junior attendance centres where there was a need for them. In 1963, in my time, there were discussions with representatives of the Juvenile Court Committee of the Magistrates' Association, which confirmed that magistrates were aware of the advantages of attendance centres.
There is a radical difference between attendance centres, which are Saturday afternoon affairs, and approved schools, which are far more expensive, residential affairs. I do not think that it would be right for the Home Secretary to ask magistrates, "Before you send somebody for residential treatment at an approved school will you please pause, because it is very much cheaper if you decide that he might be sent to an attendance centre". The two treatments are so different that it must be for the magistrates to decide which is the suitable treatment. There are 54 attendance centres. Another will open on 6th June and proposals for seven more are under consideration.
I am anxious to get attendance centres open and operating in all those places where there is a sufficient load, but it will be appreciated that in country districts and small towns there would not be enough boys to justify the opening of an attendance centre. Nevertheless, I am entirely with the hon. Lady in her views about the importance of these centres.
Recommendation No. 10 was:
Responsibility for junior detention centres should be transferred from the Prison Department to the Children's Department.
With great respect, I do not think that this would be economical. My Children's Department has no experience in or responsibility for running residential accommodation. The Prison Department has a great deal. I do not believe that it would be wise to build up the Children's Department to take charge of three or four junior detention centres, which is all there are. But, of course, centres are inspected by the Children's Departments Inspectorate and the abolition of the Prison Commission and its conversion into the Prison Department of the Home Office has greatly helped to bring the two sides together.
Recommendation No. 11 was:
The Home Office should emphasise to local authorities, particularly those in whose area the proportion of children boarded out is low, that, where boarding out is in the best interests of children, it also has welcome financial advantages.
I assure the Estimates Committee that I take every possible opportunity to do this. I entirely agree with the recommendation. It was as recently as 14th April that, when I was addressing a local authorities' child care conference, I


seized the opportunity to emphasise that in a number of areas there is still room for considerable further development of boarding out. I have been doing that ever since I became Home Secretary, and I assure the House that I shall continue to do so.

Sir G. Nicholson: But there is a wide discrepancy between different areas, is there not? Does my right hon. Friend take steps to account for this discrepancy? It seems that so much is at the whim of local authorities.

Mr. Brooke: That is exactly the point which I was making when I was addressing this conference at Church House the other day. But the House will appreciate that local authorities are autonomous bodies, and I do not believe that the children's service would be better run entirely by me from Whitehall than it is at present by the children's authorities.
Recommendation No. 12 was:
The Home Office and the Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Office, should take immediate steps to reorganise the present division of responsibilities between those departments concerned with the administration of the criminal law, with a view to rationalising its administration and rendering more effective the methods of bringing the criminal law tin to date.
Frankly, I do not think that the reform of the criminal law is hampered by the present distribution of functions. I have the Criminal Law Reform Committee, which is working very hard. It is producing frequent reports on matters which have been referred to it by me. Only the other day there was one on the number of jurors.
I keep in the closest touch with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on all these matters of common concern. Recently we appointed a working party of representatives of the Departments concerned to review the effectiveness of the present system for the provision of court accommodation in England and Wales. Lately my noble and learned Friend and I have jointly appointed a Committee under Lord Donovan to review the constitution, powers and procedure of the Court of Criminal Appeal. In the Administration of Justice Bill we have proposed, and the House has approved, a certain trans-

fer of responsibility from me to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of magistrates to juvenile courts in London.
So all this is in hand. I do not think that major changes are needed here, or that there is any confusion along the borderline. As to the Fugitive Offenders Act, I think that the House accepts that this can be amended only after thoroughgoing Commonwealth consideration. This is the stage that is being reached now. I very much hope that before the end of the year, perhaps sooner, we shall manage to reach some kind of agreement among Commonwealth countries, and then the way will be clear to introduce an amending Act, because I am sure that the Act should be amended.

Sir E. Errington: As the Lord Chancellor is responsible for one class of court and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for another class of court, which is a pure historical accident, ought not something definite to be done?

Mr. Brooke: This is exactly the matter on which I said that we had appointed a working party. The system does not seem to me to lead to any confusion or difficulty, but if we can improve it we want to do so.
Recommendation No. 13 was that—
An immediate inquiry should be set up with the object of instituting a more appropriate system of payment to the Metropolitan Police for their special services.
We could do this. We could at great length seek to make an annual estimate of what the appropriate division of costs should be. The House will appreciate that this is an allocation as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. In fact the grant was fixed in 1910 at £100,000 a year. It was not reviewed for over 50 years. When it was reviewed, in 1962, it was decided to alter the grant to £500,000 a year, based on the change in the value of money rather than on a precise calculation. With respect to the Estimates Committee, I do not believe that a precise calculation would be practicable to try to see exactly what extra cost falls on the Metropolitan Police for this, that or the other which is of a national rather than a local character. This is simply an allocation as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
Recommendation No. 14 was to the effect that—
The Home Office should increase the scale and improve the nature of national publicity in respect of civil defence.
We are constantly trying to improve its nature. I do not know whether the Estimates Committee examined the publicity material that we put out. It did not ask the Home Office to provide any of it. In 1963 we made a radical change at the time of our recruiting campaign, and we gave much fuller information as to the wide scope of home defence preparations. I am entirely with the Committee on the importance of this.
Another point the Committee had in mind was that greater use should be made of television and films. The advice of the experts in television, which I have obtained, is that it is doubtful whether television advertising would be successful in bringing in recruits to Civil Defence at an acceptable cost. However, we agree that it would be desirable to run a pilot scheme, and that is what we are proposing to do this year. There will be an experiment in part of the South of England to see whether television advertising for recruitment purposes is successful.
Recommendation 15 is that Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 should be withdrawn. I am afraid that I cannot accept that Recommendation. I appreciate that if one takes particular sentences out of the Handbook they may look silly. On the other hand, in wartime, nuclear or other, small actions of common sense may be as important as the more technical preparations for safety.
I must tell the House that from those who are using the booklet throughout the Civil Defence service we have had no criticism whatever of the type put forward by the Estimates Committee. I must be guided by the Civil Defence organisation. Nor do I think that it would have been conducive to economy to have accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that we should have made a free issue of the Handbook to 15 million householders. Frankly, as it came out about 15 months ago probably most of those copies would have been lost by now and the householders would not have them.
Recommendation 16 is:
Arrangements should be made to notify the central register of National Health Service patients of the removal to prison for periods of over two years of those patients on the lists of doctors in their area.
The Government accept that recommendation and are implementing it, but we must appreciate that there will be no saving to public funds from it.
Recommendation 17 is that the number of assistant directors in the Prison Department should be reviewed. That is being done. There will be one assistant director, who has been on special duties, moved to reinforce the assistant directors concerned with general inspecting functions. I think that that is what the Committee wished. We will keep the number of assistant directors under review, with particular reference to the development of the building programme.
Recommendation 18 states:
A joint committee of the Home Office and the Treasury should be set up to review the whole structure and organisation of the General Department with a view not only to improving its organisation, but also to ascertaining whether any of its duties might not more appropriately be performed by other Government Departments.
I would like the House to know that O. and M. officers of the Treasury and the Home Office are now engaged in a survey. This is an intractable subject, as the Estimates Committee probably discovered. The Home Office is the residuary legatee. There must be some Department which takes over any function or responsibility not specifically assigned to any other, and that is why the Home office becomes responsible for fixing the fees of ministers at burial grounds, for example.
The protection of wild birds and many other things come into this. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would consider the protection of wild birds to be concerned with fish, food or farming, but I am not clinging on to any of these matters if they could be better done by another Department.
There has been a suggestion underlying the Estimates Committee's Report that certain parts of the Home Office are slow. I would be grateful if any hon. Members would give me specific evidence where they think this is so. I


have been most concerned, since coming to the Home Office, to drop on any case where I thought there had been undue delay. That always needs watching in any organisation, public or private. I am most concerned that the Home Office should work swiftly, but at the same time most carefully, because this is not a Department in which one can afford to make mistakes. I am anxious that the Department for which I am responsible should meet the needs of the House and show that it is responsive in all ways to both Houses of Parliament.

Sir G. Nicholson: On behalf of the Estimates Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend for his speech. We can no longer accuse him of giving us the brush-off and I am sure that we will gladly bury the hatchet.

Sir E. Errington: It would be churlish of me not to thank my right hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, although he may not have satisfied me in all respects. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. John Peel (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee Tomorrow.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the keeping of riding establishments it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to

local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

BRISTOL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I want to raise a question tonight that greatly concerns a firm and its workers in my constituency—Bristol Commercial Vehicles, a famous firm of bus makers now working well below capacity, facing redundancy, and with a very uncertain future, solely and simply because of Government policy. Before I come to the point at issue, I should like very briefly to go into the background of the case.
Bristol Commercial Vehicles, in its very early days, had links with the famous Bristol Aircraft Company and was later taken over by Thomas Tilling at a time when it operated the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. The company's task then was to provide vehicles for the carriage company operating services in Bristol. At that time, it sold in the open market quite normally, and even had an export trade of its own.
In 1948, the firm of Thomas Tilling voluntarily sold itself to the British Transport Commission and, therefore, the operation of Bristol Commercial Vehicles, it being a subsidiary of Thomas Tillings, came under the British Transport Commission and under the operations of the 1947 Transport Act. That Act, which is no longer on the Statute Book, provided a quota system for the manufacture of vehicles, and certain limitations on the operations of subsidiaries or component parts of the Transport Commission. The firm only in one year actually reached the maximum production allowed within the quota. It had worked, and still works to a lesser degree, with the Eastern Coach Works in Lowestoft supplying vehicles for Tillings and also for the Scottish group.
Then came the 1962 Transport Bill. When that Measure was first introduced


into the House the restrictions of the 1947 Act appeared to have been removed; that is to say, the Bill when first introduced was absolutely silent on the manufacturing powers of the new subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company, of which Bristol Commercial Vehicles was one. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport defended this very vigorously in the Standing Committee when certain pressures were raised against this new freedom for subsidiaries. On 27th February, 1962, he talked about the pressure to limit the operations of these companies, and said:
Frankly, if people like A.E.C. and Leylands—the big manufacturers—cannot meet competition from little firms like this which are producing a thousand or 300 chassis a year, then it is time that A.E.C. and Leylands woke up a bit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th February, 1962; c. 982.]
This was definitely Government policy at that stage. However, when the Bill came to the House for the Report stage, the Minister changed his mind and the House wrote in, on his Amendment, a provision which laid down that the subsidiaries of the Transport Commission Holding Company were only to produce goods for sale or use by the Holding Company or any other subsidiaries. It is this provision of the Act which in the first instance created the difficulties to which I refer.
I know that it is not in order on the Adjournment to raise a matter which entails legislation. Lest you should think that I am veering from this, Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I shall make it clear that legislation is not necessary to put this matter right. At any rate, the consequences of this Amendment to the Transport Act has inevitably been the contraction of Bristol Commercial Vehicles. I say "inevitably" because of the position in which the company finds itself. It can sell only to subsidiaries of the British Transport Holding Company, namely, the Tilling Group and the Scottish Group. However, there is nothing to prevent the bus-operating companies from acquiring their vehicles from other sources. They can go to private enterprise for them but Bristol Commercial Vehicles is able to sell only to them.
Similarly, and this is an important point, Bristol Commercial Vehicles can buy components from private engineering firms but cannot sell them to private engineering firms. As an inevitable consequence of this, in November last year, production having fallen and prospects being poor, 123 men were declared redundant. The confidence of the workers in the future of the firm was greatly shaken. They began consultations with me and I went to see the firm. I saw modern equipment lying more or less unused and I tried to help find a solution to the problem.
I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary and I pointed out the difficulties, particularly with regard to subcontracting I had a reply from him which was really just a repetition of a quotation from Section 29(7) of the Transport Act, 1962. He followed this quotation with a very firm reference saying that it was impossible in the circumstances to permit such subcontracting, which was a point on which I had particularly written to him.
I then went to the factory in Bristol and discussed the matter with the men there. It was unanimously decided by the men that the way in which the problem should be tackled would be quite another way, namely, that the workers in the factory, and this was unanimously agreed at a meeting in the canteen of the clerical and manual staff, should write to the chairman of the Holding Company, Sir Philip Warter, and ask permission to buy shares in the company. This they were entitled to do under the Transport Act, 1962. The intention was to buy shares to participate in the ownership of the company. It would then no longer be a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of the Holding Company it would be free to trade without restriction. This was plainly stated in a letter to Sir Philip Warter and to the Ministry of Transport and I sent a covering letter in support of the application.
I want to make it clear, because I am not sure that it was altogether clear, that the workers had no specific interest in the management aspect of the company. They were concerned, by sharing in the ownership of the company, to free themselves from statutory restrictions which made nonsense of their work. It showed a remarkable faith


in the future of the company that they should do this. Incidentally, this cooperation in national and co-operative ownership could well have something to offer in the future, but I let that pass.
The chairman of the Holding Company wrote to me in response to my letter and he said that, in the circumstances, he thought it necessary to consult the Minister of Transport. Under the Transport Act, of course, the Minister has power to deal directly with the Holding Company. He can give it a direction compelling it to sell the shares in this instance or to refuse the request. He is ministerially responsible, and this is the only reason why I am able to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.
Later, I had a reply from the chairman of the Holding Company in which he said that he had decided to decline the request to buy shares, and in his letter he used a phrase which puzzled me very much. He said that he thought it would be better if we used
more direct means 
of dealing with this particular problem. I could not understand the meaning of "more direct means" because the only more direct means which came to my mind was an amendment of the Act. It would not be in order for me to speak about that now, and it was clearly impossible for an amendment to be introduced this side of the General Election. Therefore, I asked exactly what "more direct means" meant. As a result, I learned that it was in the mind of the Holding Company that it might decide to sell shares to private industry or exchange shares with private industry, which would have exactly the same effect as what the workers in the firm wanted, namely, it would lift the restriction which now applies to the firm and permit it to trade outside.
At the same time, I had a letter from the Minister of Transport himself in which he said that this was a decision of the Holding Company, indicating that he did not feel able to overturn it although, clearly, he had power to do so. From the Holding Company, on the other hand, I had a message to say that this was their view but that, in any case, I should remember that, if it had been an opposite view, the Minister would

have power to overturn it. Thus, there was a completely circular argument, the Holding Company to some extent shielding behind what it thought the Minister's view would be and the Minister upholding a view which the Holding Company had taken after consultation with him.
The Holding Company being prepared, if circumstances were right, to contemplate the transfer or sale of shares to private interests, the last logical reason for refusing the workers' request had completely disappeared. It would be one thing to say "We, the Holding Company, are hanging on to our subsidiaries and we will not let them go to anybody", but it is totally illogical to say, "We are prepared to sell them to certain economic groups which might be interested but not to the workers who have a direct interest in the success of their undertaking". In fact, the only valid case which the Minister and the Holding Company had in these circumstances is destroyed.
I have, therefore, tried on several occasions, so far without success, to raise the matter in the House in order to air the problem and to ask the Minister, as I do tonight, to reconsider the decision taken in his Department and to ask the Holding Company to agree to sell the shares.
I do this for four reasons. First, the position of the firm is now absolutely intolerable. Here is a firm which can only face long-term contraction, a firm which has excellent new plant, newly equipped, which is not being used. Its position is quite impossible. With the great appeals which the N.E.D.C. now makes for an extension of production and with the great need for general economic expansion, it seems to the workers there and to me absurd that this plant, because of Ministerial decision, should not be used as it could be.
Second, the decision by the Minister and the Holding Company is entirely contrary to the claims which the Government have made about their attitude to the running of nationalised industry. The Minister justified the Beeching plan for the railways on the ground that one had to operate the railways on a commercial basis. When the right hon. Gentleman was himself speaking on the Transport Bill in 1962, in a period


of my temporary absence from the House, he said that he thought that
…the assets should be used to the maximum".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 513.]
That was the Minister's view. Yet, as a result of this restriction, the assets are not being used to the maximum.
The third reason why this is such a monstrous decision is that it makes nonsense in a modern technical age when firms increasingly specialise in certain components. They buy what they need from firms which specialise in such components, and they would normally wish to sell what they specialise in and make best. Bristol Commercial Vehicles buy engines, chassis frames, castings, springs and electrical apparatus from private enterprise, but the things in which they specialise, which include engines, gear boxes and axles, they are not allowed to sell even for assembly by other bus construction companies. This has the effect of freezing the pattern of production in the nationalised industries into a pattern which has no relation to modern technical needs.
The final reason why I raise this matter is this. No doubt the Minister will produce the figures of the chassis being produced. A year ago 800 were being produced. Now the figure is 757. A year ago 900 men were employed. The figure now is 680. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will produce these figures and say that as far ahead as can be seen there is a prospect for the firm to do well. But the men do not see it this way, because, although there is no immediate prospect of further redundancy, they know very well that the situation in which they are trying to operate is economically nonsensical.
The result is that, after the redundancies had stopped, skilled men who are now needed in the firm are seeking employment outside. Although I do not want to suggest that morale in the factory has collapsed—the attitude of management and men on this issue is absolutely united; there has been full support for this at every level—the anxiety of the skilled men about the future is likely to do further damage to the company.
I sum the matter up in this way. The restrictions under which Bristol Commercial Vehicles operate are absurd,

unfair and economically nonsensical. The Minister has the power, without legislation, to correct the situation and to lift the restrictions by acceding to the workers' request to buy some of the shares—they are interested in only a very small number—which will enable them to go ahead. I appeal to the Minister to give Bristol Commercial Vehicles, 'Which has a proud history, modern machinery and a highly skilled and forward-looking labour force, the green light which it needs to develop in future.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman two questions which I hope he will be able to answer, for unlike some ministerial decisions this is not a once-for-all decision; it can be reviewed at any time. There is no reason why it should not be reviewed again. Will the hon. Gentleman come to Bristol and visit the factory and experience for him-self the sense of waste that there is in these well equipped workshops not operating at capacity when there is a demand for the products which they make? Will he talk to the Chairman of Tillings, who has been charged under the Transport Act with the responsibility for maximising the profits of his undertaking, and ask him how this can be done in the existing situation?
Naturally, I have thought of the situation in terms of the forthcoming General Election. Hon. Members opposite have decided to stay in office for a little longer. The inevitable effect of this in this field and every other has been to delay important decisions. Therefore, having failed to get satisfaction from the hon. Gentleman and from the Minister, I decided to approach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, since it is a matter of great concern to my constituency and others in a similar position. I am glad to be able to give the answer which my right hon. Friend would give if he were answering this debate—that "a Labour Government will remove the restrictions that now prevent nationalised industries from engaging in normal trade in the home and export markets, and will encourage them to develop to the full in the interests of the industry, the workers in it and the whole community."
Those are quotes from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, within a few months, will be able during his period of office to give instructions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the consequence which hon. Members opposite must face of deciding to delay the election. The power and decision making on this and other issues must now be passed to my own Front Bench but there is no reason why the Minister should not review the situation now, visit the factory and discuss it with the chairman concerned.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Bonn) has raised a subject of considerable interest to a number of his constituents and one which also contains important points of policy and principle. In deploying his case the hon. Gentleman has, I think—and I hope that he will not mind my saying this—made quite a good speech. I do not deny that there is something in what he has said but perhaps not as much as he thinks, for otherwise there would not, of course, be any difference of opinion between us.
In order to understand the points at issue properly, it is, I agree, necessary to go back a little into the history of the firm involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited is one of three wholly owned subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company. The other two are Star Bodies (B.R.S.) Limited and Eastern Coach Works Limited and they are all three engaged only in manufacture.
The Bristol Company makes chassis for road vehicles. Its capacity is about 1,070 chassis a year and, until recently, output has been running at about 1,000 a year, more or less up to capacity. It is now, as the hon. Member said, expected to stay at about 750 per annum. Most of the firm's orders come from bus companies in the Tilling Bus Group, though the company has also done work for the Scottish Bus Group and for British Road Services.
Before the Transport Act, 1947, the Bristol vehicle manufacturing plant was owned by the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, Limited, and it was

sold with the rest of the Tilling Group bus interests to the British Transport Commission in 1948. Here, we come to what is a very interesting point.
Under the 1947 Act, the company was obliged, like the other manufacturing companies I have just mentioned, to manufacture solely for the British Tran-port Commission and its subsidiary undertakings. In other words, it was statutorily debarred from supplying its products to outside concerns. It was also subject to an output restriction in the form of a quota.
That was the position under the Socialist Party's nationalisation Act. The company was doubly limited—limited in its clientele and limited in its output. So I really do not understand why, in the last few minutes, the hon. Gentleman got so excited, saying that this is a most monstrous state of affairs and how he and his party, in the extremely unlikely event of their ever getting power again, will change the set up. If, after all, it is as bad as that, why did they ever introduce it in the first place? It is their baby and yet from the hon. Gentleman we have had the same sort of arguments as we had from several of his hon. Friends in a somewhat similar debate on the railways' manufacturing powers and the same threat to alter their own legislation if they get power.
I suppose, however, when it is so difficult to get a clear enunciation of policy on major issues from hon. Members opposite, we must be grateful to be told what their policy is on these minor matters, even if it is only to reverse decisions they themselves took when they were in power.
In the Government's Transport Act, 1962, although some changes were made, the position remains very much the same as in the original Act which the hon. Gentleman now complains about. Under Section 29(7) of the 1962 Act the three companies I mentioned are still allowed to manufacture only for the nationalised transport undertakings and their subsidiaries. On the other hand, the quota system has been removed and instead the companies are subject to a direction issued by the Minister to the Transport Holding Company under Section 29(4) of the 1962 Act. This requires the Transport Holding Company to exercise its powers


over the manufacturing companies so as to ensure that their productive capacity does not exceed the productive capacity as it stood on 1st January, 1963.
The Government's view on this whole question was made abundantly clear when the Bill was being passed through Parliament in 1962. We recognised two things. First of all, we recognised that the position of the three companies in the new organisation was anomalous, but that to prohibit them from manufacture would seriously affect the value of the public investment in them. Secondly, we recognised that there was no objection to the sale of these companies at the right price and under the right conditions.
In fact, the components of the Holding Company were placed in much the same position as they had been in when they were part of the British Transport Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us credit for the fact that, though there was scope here for changes of a doctrinaire nature, we virtually maintained the status quo as it had been in the Socialist 1947 Act.
To bring the picture up to date, there has recently been, as the hon. Gentleman said, some redundancy in the Bristol company's works. As the result of this redundancy, the men made a request to the management to buy some shares in the company. The object of this proposal—and there was never any secret about it—was to make the company no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of the Transport Holding Company, so that it would escape from the manufacturing restrictions imposed by Section 29(7) of the 1962 Act. The company could then, in its new found freedom so far as the Act was concerned, set out to expand its markets and during slack periods perhaps accept sub-contracting work from local engineering firms.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituents then appealed to him to support this proposal and the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend, as he has told us, and to the chairman of the Transport Holding Company, supporting the request of these workers at the Bristol Factory to buy shares in the company.
What happened after that was that Sir Philip Warter, the chairman of the Transport Holding Company, discussed this suggestion with my right hon. Friend and subsequently replied to the hon. Gentleman that he did not consider that the course proposed was the best way of dealing with the restrictions placed upon the company by the 1962 Act. But even if the chairman had agreed to the proposal, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the assurance given by Lord Mills in July, 1962, that the company's productivity would not be materially increased. This means that, even if the company were free to find customers outside the nationalised transport field, it could do no more than take up the slack to the level of capacity as it existed at the beginning of 1963. It could not, in fact, expand beyond that level.
But, quite apart from this restriction against expansion, would it be right to proceed in the way that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have proposed? I think that this is an important aspect that we ought to consider—the propriety of acting in the way that the hon. Gentleman's constituents want. I am sure that there is no doubt about what the intentions of Parliament were in this matter. They have been stated, after all, on two occasions. In the 1947 Act the company was confined to the nationalised transport field, and in the 1962 Act Parliament clearly decided to leave that position unchanged—a tribute, if one may put it that way, to the original legislation of the party opposite.
In view of this twice-expressed decision, a small sale of shares on the lines proposed would be merely a device—that is all it would be—to circumvent the intentions of Parliament, and my right hon. Friend would not consider it proper to give his consent to a sale for such a purpose, as he would have to do under Section 29(8) of the 1962 Act, even if the Holding Company sought his consent. But it has not done so, and the initiative in a matter like this is, of course, not for my right hon. Friend but for the Transport Holding Company.
However, as my right hon. Friend suggested in the debate on the 1962 Act, the Government would not think it improper for the Holding Company to consider selling the works outright if a satis-


factory offer were made. In the absence, however, of such an offer, it is the responsibility of the Holding Company to manage the securities entrusted to it by the Act to the best of its ability.
The whole of this problem has, of course, really arisen, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, out of the reduced demand from the company's customers. As I expect he knows, the company has completed the process of rationalisation which it decided to undertake recently. The company tried to handle the unavoidable redundancies as fairly as possible, and I am told that practically all the men who were dismissed were quickly able to find other employment in the Bristol area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—he indicated that I should probably be able to give an assurance, and I can—that the company is always on the lookout for additional orders of the kind permitted by the Act, and, indeed, that the Holding Company believes that for the foreseeable future there will be enough work for round about the present numbers of staff employed—about 678.
I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman wants, because he has various doctrinaire desires which I am sorry I cannot satisfy, but I hope that this will be an assurance of the kind in which his constituents are mainly interested. It shows that the position is very far from being impossible in the way that he suggested. The hon. Gentleman may

say that he is not asking for an increase but for production to be maintained at the level at which it was before these changes were made, but this would involve a complete change in the purpose of the Company and would, in fact, amount to an extension of nationalisation.
Before I end I should just like to explain how my right hon. Friend became involved in all this. My right hon. Friend came into the picture as a result of the letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to him about his constituents' proposals. My right hon. Friend then got into touch with the Holding Company and was informed by the chairman of its views and its policy in this matter. I should emphasise, however—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really appreciated this—that the initiative has genuinely come from the Transport Holding Company and not from my right hon. Friend. The Transport Holding Company does not like the proposal, and my right hon. Friend agrees that, taking three things into account, it is perfectly right to have come to that conclusion——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned a twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.